(04-13-2022, 12:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-12-2022, 09:46 PM)Jags Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t agree with you politically. but all in all, you seem cool in your own right. But this is a bit of a JDub moment for you, if I’m being honest. I’m not sure how any normal person would take that as a legitimate threat. also, if we’re getting JDub-ish, you didn’t quote it right.
I'm not saying it's a legitimate threat, though I don't know any of you well enough to be 100% sure.
I'm saying it's totally inappropriate and distracting.
You're changing an intellectual conversation into a conversation that's more about pugilism and machismo.
We all agree that they suck.
It's much more productive and interesting to follow that with "here's why they suck" and "how can we improve it."
Trying to one up each other with "just vote em out" and "voting doesn't work let's kill them all" is neither productive nor interesting.
The other thing that bothers me about some of you saying "Kill all politicians" is you don't include Trump in that group. Which makes you naive, not macho. Trump is a politician and it's infantile to say otherwise.
No one here is going to go massacre anyone. Quit being such a drama queen.
My point with this whole thing was to show how we (US) don't mean a dang thing to politicians (THEM) and I guess people got confused by the example I used. It's not that difficult to understand. US is the people and THEM are the politicians.
Does anyone in any way misunderstand what I'm saying?
(04-13-2022, 05:10 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 12:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying it's a legitimate threat, though I don't know any of you well enough to be 100% sure.
I'm saying it's totally inappropriate and distracting.
You're changing an intellectual conversation into a conversation that's more about pugilism and machismo.
We all agree that they suck.
It's much more productive and interesting to follow that with "here's why they suck" and "how can we improve it."
Trying to one up each other with "just vote em out" and "voting doesn't work let's kill them all" is neither productive nor interesting.
The other thing that bothers me about some of you saying "Kill all politicians" is you don't include Trump in that group. Which makes you naive, not macho. Trump is a politician and it's infantile to say otherwise.
No one here is going to go massacre anyone. Quit being such a drama queen.
My point with this whole thing was to show how we (US) don't mean a dang thing to politicians (THEM) and I guess people got confused by the example I used. It's not that difficult to understand. US is the people and THEM are the politicians.
Does anyone in any way misunderstand what I'm saying?
Not at all. But my point is, them are us. We elect them. We have a democratic republic. Those people you call "them" come straight out of our own ranks. We vote them into office. Blame them all you want for how they act or what they do, but ultimately, WE are responsible.
But also, I agree with Mike. To say, "they all ought to be guillotined" is pointless bluster. It's a great way to lower the IQ level of the conversation, but that's about it.
We don't elect THEM. The elite elect our politicians. The guys that get the funding make it to the top; it's that simple. The candidates that somehow manage to get there without the support of the elite are labeled as crazy and lied about by the MSM.
(04-13-2022, 05:24 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 05:10 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]No one here is going to go massacre anyone. Quit being such a drama queen.
My point with this whole thing was to show how we (US) don't mean a dang thing to politicians (THEM) and I guess people got confused by the example I used. It's not that difficult to understand. US is the people and THEM are the politicians.
Does anyone in any way misunderstand what I'm saying?
Not at all. But my point is, them are us. We elect them. We have a democratic republic. Those people you call "them" come straight out of our own ranks. We vote them into office. Blame them all you want for how they act or what they do, but ultimately, WE are responsible.
But also, I agree with Mike. To say, "they all ought to be guillotined" is pointless bluster. It's a great way to lower the IQ level of the conversation, but that's about it.
There is not one politician in Washington DC that I voted into office. They definitely do not represent me. They stopped representing any of us when they started taking a paycheck as well as money from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations.
I am not the one who mentioned killing anyone with a guillotine. I replied to Trivial's comment because everything else he said answered the question. I didn't know I had to be so specific.
I'm done talking about that subject.
(04-13-2022, 06:12 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 05:24 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Not at all. But my point is, them are us. We elect them. We have a democratic republic. Those people you call "them" come straight out of our own ranks. We vote them into office. Blame them all you want for how they act or what they do, but ultimately, WE are responsible.
But also, I agree with Mike. To say, "they all ought to be guillotined" is pointless bluster. It's a great way to lower the IQ level of the conversation, but that's about it.
There is not one politician in Washington DC that I voted into office. They definitely do not represent me. They stopped representing any of us when they started taking a paycheck as well as money from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporations.
I am not the one who mentioned killing anyone with a guillotine. I replied to Trivial's comment because everything else he said answered the question. I didn't know I had to be so specific.
I'm done talking about that subject.
There's not one. There are more than one. There are three that represent you. You might not have actually voted for them, but in each case the number of people who wanted them to represent you outnumbered the number of people who didn't. If you think you are an "us" and they are a "them", well, bad news, "they" outnumber "us".
No, they don't. Very few of us like our politicians. We have more in common with each other than the elite. We are just forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, which we also all hate.
(04-13-2022, 06:48 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No, they don't. Very few of us like our politicians. We have more in common with each other than the elite. We are just forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, which we also all hate.
I don't disagree!
Now we are actually getting down to brass tacks instead of chasing ghosts or trying to nail jello to walls like we typically do.
How can we get more and better candidates to run?
How can we encourage the candidates who do run to win by making us happy, rather than win by making us slightly less angry than the other guy?
The political realm can be separated into ideals and materials. Western society has a lot of upcoming challenges in the material realm. Climate change, an aging population, rapid worldwide diffusion of game-changing military hardware such as drones, we could go on.
In the realm of ideas, the internet has rapidly challenged old narratives and created 10 new ones for each old one. No one believes that this is reversible. The only ways to cope with it are by finding and implementing the best possible answers to the two bolded questions above.
You pay a lot of attention to the realm of ideas, and you continually point out to us how dangerous you think some of these new pieces on the game board are. But you can't just kick certain pieces off the board. You can't defeat them with logic or arguments. In a world with single choice, single winner elections, everyone has to join one of two parties, and each party from here on out forever will have to cater to at least some of these new and dangerous narratives to win. But in a world with many choice, many winner elections, the loonies run in the open and are clearly separate from the mainstream parties. They gain seats and platforms but never power. This is much more resilient in a pluralistic realm of ideas.
(04-13-2022, 05:24 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 05:10 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]No one here is going to go massacre anyone. Quit being such a drama queen.
My point with this whole thing was to show how we (US) don't mean a dang thing to politicians (THEM) and I guess people got confused by the example I used. It's not that difficult to understand. US is the people and THEM are the politicians.
Does anyone in any way misunderstand what I'm saying?
Not at all. But my point is, them are us. We elect them. We have a democratic republic. Those people you call "them" come straight out of our own ranks. We vote them into office. Blame them all you want for how they act or what they do, but ultimately, WE are responsible.
But also, I agree with Mike. To say, "they all ought to be guillotined" is pointless bluster. It's a great way to lower the IQ level of the conversation, but that's about it.
Come on Marty, “We” don’t elect “Them” any more. The parties and the MSM choose whom “We” have the choice of casting a ballot for and the politicians they offer up are 2 sides of the same coin. Trump was an anomaly that both sides of the establishment hated because he didn’t play by the rules and the establishment will never allow that to happen again.
(04-13-2022, 07:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 06:48 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]No, they don't. Very few of us like our politicians. We have more in common with each other than the elite. We are just forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, which we also all hate.
I don't disagree!
Now we are actually getting down to brass tacks instead of chasing ghosts or trying to nail jello to walls like we typically do.
How can we get more and better candidates to run?
How can we encourage the candidates who do run to win by making us happy, rather than win by making us slightly less angry than the other guy?
The political realm can be separated into ideals and materials. Western society has a lot of upcoming challenges in the material realm. Climate change, an aging population, rapid worldwide diffusion of game-changing military hardware such as drones, we could go on.
In the realm of ideas, the internet has rapidly challenged old narratives and created 10 new ones for each old one. No one believes that this is reversible. The only ways to cope with it are by finding and implementing the best possible answers to the two bolded questions above.
You pay a lot of attention to the realm of ideas, and you continually point out to us how dangerous you think some of these new pieces on the game board are. But you can't just kick certain pieces off the board. You can't defeat them with logic or arguments. In a world with single choice, single winner elections, everyone has to join one of two parties, and each party from here on out forever will have to cater to at least some of these new and dangerous narratives to win. But in a world with many choice, many winner elections, the loonies run in the open and are clearly separate from the mainstream parties. They gain seats and platforms but never power. This is much more resilient in a pluralistic realm of ideas.
I'm open to other voting methods, especially in the primaries. I am not open to changing our federal electoral system. Here's a compromise. Party primaries get standardized rules that binds their convention to choose the party winner as decided by the people. Primaries adopt a ranked choice style. Candidates are ranked and the person with the most votes wins. For the national election, we follow the constitution and use only the nominees from parties that are recognized in at least 3/4s of the states. That seems simple enough.
(04-13-2022, 09:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 07:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't disagree!
Now we are actually getting down to brass tacks instead of chasing ghosts or trying to nail jello to walls like we typically do.
How can we get more and better candidates to run?
How can we encourage the candidates who do run to win by making us happy, rather than win by making us slightly less angry than the other guy?
The political realm can be separated into ideals and materials. Western society has a lot of upcoming challenges in the material realm. Climate change, an aging population, rapid worldwide diffusion of game-changing military hardware such as drones, we could go on.
In the realm of ideas, the internet has rapidly challenged old narratives and created 10 new ones for each old one. No one believes that this is reversible. The only ways to cope with it are by finding and implementing the best possible answers to the two bolded questions above.
You pay a lot of attention to the realm of ideas, and you continually point out to us how dangerous you think some of these new pieces on the game board are. But you can't just kick certain pieces off the board. You can't defeat them with logic or arguments. In a world with single choice, single winner elections, everyone has to join one of two parties, and each party from here on out forever will have to cater to at least some of these new and dangerous narratives to win. But in a world with many choice, many winner elections, the loonies run in the open and are clearly separate from the mainstream parties. They gain seats and platforms but never power. This is much more resilient in a pluralistic realm of ideas.
I'm open to other voting methods, especially in the primaries. I am not open to changing our federal electoral system. Here's a compromise. Party primaries get standardized rules that binds their convention to choose the party winner as decided by the people. Primaries adopt a ranked choice style. Candidates are ranked and the person with the most votes wins. For the national election, we follow the constitution and use only the nominees from parties that are recognized in at least 3/4s of the states. That seems simple enough.
That's a pretty good start.
We agree that their should not be a direct national election for President. Unfortunately that's a popular idea, mostly Democrats who want to avenge 2000 and 2016.
We agree that the way parties pick candidates is where the problem starts. The states have a lot of authority to change this. Florida could decide tomorrow that they won't do Presidential primaries at all, or do them a totally different way, but would it mean anything if the other states don't take similar steps? I have read Article II and Amendment 12 many times and I don't think the federal government has the authority to create a new primary or nominating process for President. Would you be open to amending the constitution to allow for that? Or would you be open to an interstate compact for that?
Separate but related, do you agree that we need to improve how we pick candidates for other offices, not just President? Did you vote yes on the Amendment to give Florida top two primaries? It didn't have enough support to pass, but did you vote yes?
(04-13-2022, 12:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 12:07 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not saying it's a legitimate threat, though I don't know any of you well enough to be 100% sure.
I'm saying it's totally inappropriate and distracting.
You're changing an intellectual conversation into a conversation that's more about pugilism and machismo.
We all agree that they suck.
It's much more productive and interesting to follow that with "here's why they suck" and "how can we improve it."
Trying to one up each other with "just vote em out" and "voting doesn't work let's kill them all" is neither productive nor interesting.
The other thing that bothers me about some of you saying "Kill all politicians" is you don't include Trump in that group. Which makes you naive, not macho. Trump is a politician and it's infantile to say otherwise.
I agree with that. If "they all need to be guillotined" is just hyperbole, and not a serious statement, what's the point of saying it?
Kinda like they say “getting axed” when getting fired. Have you ever seen anyone with an ax sticking out their head as they were escorted out the building?
(04-13-2022, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 09:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm open to other voting methods, especially in the primaries. I am not open to changing our federal electoral system. Here's a compromise. Party primaries get standardized rules that binds their convention to choose the party winner as decided by the people. Primaries adopt a ranked choice style. Candidates are ranked and the person with the most votes wins. For the national election, we follow the constitution and use only the nominees from parties that are recognized in at least 3/4s of the states. That seems simple enough.
That's a pretty good start.
We agree that their should not be a direct national election for President. Unfortunately that's a popular idea, mostly Democrats who want to avenge 2000 and 2016.
We agree that the way parties pick candidates is where the problem starts. The states have a lot of authority to change this. Florida could decide tomorrow that they won't do Presidential primaries at all, or do them a totally different way, but would it mean anything if the other states don't take similar steps? I have read Article II and Amendment 12 many times and I don't think the federal government has the authority to create a new primary or nominating process for President. Would you be open to amending the constitution to allow for that? Or would you be open to an interstate compact for that?
Separate but related, do you agree that we need to improve how we pick candidates for other offices, not just President? Did you vote yes on the Amendment to give Florida top two primaries? It didn't have enough support to pass, but did you vote yes?
I don't care how we do it. I think we need to change some voting rules in favor of the people. Here's the problem:
Democracy basically means - YouTube
I don't like how Florida politicians keep putting amendments on the table. We have a Republic for a reason. I don't want people making laws. I want people to have the opportunity to remove politicians and elect new ones when they aren't working in our best interest. You don't have to be smart to feel the burdens that are put on us by bad policies. Maybe I give folks too much credit, though. I would change many things about the way we vote.
(04-13-2022, 10:22 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 12:11 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with that. If "they all need to be guillotined" is just hyperbole, and not a serious statement, what's the point of saying it?
Kinda like they say “getting axed” when getting fired. Have you ever seen anyone with an ax sticking out their head as they were escorted out the building?
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that expression isn't connected to executions. Axes are for trees usually I always thought it was from a company's org chart. It looks like a tree and sometimes the boss has to cut off some branches.
(04-13-2022, 10:31 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's a pretty good start.
We agree that their should not be a direct national election for President. Unfortunately that's a popular idea, mostly Democrats who want to avenge 2000 and 2016.
We agree that the way parties pick candidates is where the problem starts. The states have a lot of authority to change this. Florida could decide tomorrow that they won't do Presidential primaries at all, or do them a totally different way, but would it mean anything if the other states don't take similar steps? I have read Article II and Amendment 12 many times and I don't think the federal government has the authority to create a new primary or nominating process for President. Would you be open to amending the constitution to allow for that? Or would you be open to an interstate compact for that?
Separate but related, do you agree that we need to improve how we pick candidates for other offices, not just President? Did you vote yes on the Amendment to give Florida top two primaries? It didn't have enough support to pass, but did you vote yes?
I don't care how we do it. I think we need to change some voting rules in favor of the people. Here's the problem:
Democracy basically means - YouTube
I don't like how Florida politicians keep putting amendments on the table. We have a Republic for a reason. I don't want people making laws. I want people to have the opportunity to remove politicians and elect new ones when they aren't working in our best interest. You don't have to be smart to feel the burdens that are put on us by bad policies. Maybe I give folks too much credit, though. I would change many things about the way we vote.
I'm genuinely interested, not trying to trap you or anything- what changes would you make to the way we vote?
(04-13-2022, 10:31 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 09:59 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's a pretty good start.
We agree that their should not be a direct national election for President. Unfortunately that's a popular idea, mostly Democrats who want to avenge 2000 and 2016.
We agree that the way parties pick candidates is where the problem starts. The states have a lot of authority to change this. Florida could decide tomorrow that they won't do Presidential primaries at all, or do them a totally different way, but would it mean anything if the other states don't take similar steps? I have read Article II and Amendment 12 many times and I don't think the federal government has the authority to create a new primary or nominating process for President. Would you be open to amending the constitution to allow for that? Or would you be open to an interstate compact for that?
Separate but related, do you agree that we need to improve how we pick candidates for other offices, not just President? Did you vote yes on the Amendment to give Florida top two primaries? It didn't have enough support to pass, but did you vote yes?
I don't care how we do it. I think we need to change some voting rules in favor of the people. Here's the problem:
Democracy basically means - YouTube
I don't like how Florida politicians keep putting amendments on the table. We have a Republic for a reason. I don't want people making laws. I want people to have the opportunity to remove politicians and elect new ones when they aren't working in our best interest. You don't have to be smart to feel the burdens that are put on us by bad policies. Maybe I give folks too much credit, though. I would change many things about the way we vote.
So you agree that changes to voting rules are needed.
But you think only the legislature should make them.
The legislature was elected under the current voting rules, why would they see any problem?
Their changes would be only to solidify their hold on power, and that of their sponsors.
Excluding referenda from the effort seems like letting the fox guard the hen house, to me.
An update...
I'm currently lugging the guillotine to DC. I should have just disassembled it and reassembled it there, but dammit, once a choice has been made it must be followed through.
The carriage's wheel and axel broke a few miles back... it's gonna take a few weeks but I'll get there. Anyone ready to carry through with my threat? We can meet up!
(04-13-2022, 09:33 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2022, 07:27 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't disagree!
Now we are actually getting down to brass tacks instead of chasing ghosts or trying to nail jello to walls like we typically do.
How can we get more and better candidates to run?
How can we encourage the candidates who do run to win by making us happy, rather than win by making us slightly less angry than the other guy?
The political realm can be separated into ideals and materials. Western society has a lot of upcoming challenges in the material realm. Climate change, an aging population, rapid worldwide diffusion of game-changing military hardware such as drones, we could go on.
In the realm of ideas, the internet has rapidly challenged old narratives and created 10 new ones for each old one. No one believes that this is reversible. The only ways to cope with it are by finding and implementing the best possible answers to the two bolded questions above.
You pay a lot of attention to the realm of ideas, and you continually point out to us how dangerous you think some of these new pieces on the game board are. But you can't just kick certain pieces off the board. You can't defeat them with logic or arguments. In a world with single choice, single winner elections, everyone has to join one of two parties, and each party from here on out forever will have to cater to at least some of these new and dangerous narratives to win. But in a world with many choice, many winner elections, the loonies run in the open and are clearly separate from the mainstream parties. They gain seats and platforms but never power. This is much more resilient in a pluralistic realm of ideas.
I'm open to other voting methods, especially in the primaries. I am not open to changing our federal electoral system. Here's a compromise. Party primaries get standardized rules that binds their convention to choose the party winner as decided by the people. Primaries adopt a ranked choice style. Candidates are ranked and the person with the most votes wins. For the national election, we follow the constitution and use only the nominees from parties that are recognized in at least 3/4s of the states. That seems simple enough.
But does the government actually have a constitutional right to regulate how political parties choose their candidates? Here is an interesting article on the subject, dealing with state regulation of political parties. I'm not sure if the federal government has that right, though.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0...20imposed.
By the way, if the Republicans had had ranked choice voting, I don't think Trump would have gotten the nomination in 2016.