US Elections 2016

[Barothmuk]

you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

[Meshugger]

 

you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Yes and Oz politics....you can't tell me you think its stable ? You have people getting replaced in the middle of there term and then people decide to replace that candidate. You have a  PM getting replaced because Oz citizens suddenly get mood swings...its very chaotic to me and seems a little odd

Most of those changes of PM's in Australia the last 10 years were internal party squabbles in the Labour party. They have this weird thing that gives the unions a disproportional influence and they practise cloak and dagger politics a lot. Kevin and Julia taking turns gathering enough votes at political meetings to have each other dragged out of office in the middle of the night and replaced with new labour leader cliques, replacing the top powerstructures with "loyal legionaires" while disposing of anyone loyal to the ruling Caesar PM. It's quite entertaining in a tv drama kind of way. Australia also has an unusually short maximum term of 3 years before new elections are required, making it even more impressive that they backstab each other before elections are up anyway.

 

Yes, I was referring to Kevin and Julia

 

 

How does a PM get replaced in Oz before his term ends? Who can vote them out....it just seems like a fragile system because the reality is you can't  expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

 

Get enough important party members to summon an impromptu caucus and elect a new party leader. Simple as that. The people vote for the party, not the person, so in the end, the party decides who resides in the "cottage" (the PM's residence, like the White House and 10, Downing Street).

 

Yeah it adds to the chaos because you just have  to ensure you have enough party members to  be on your side .....can they have a leadership change anytime?

 

 

you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

 

 

 

 

 

you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country?

 

 

What boys? Wait let me guess.....you guys know the best candidate for your country right 

Edited March 8, 2016 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

You sure are a gift that keeps on giving.

[BruceVC]

You sure are a gift that keeps on giving.

I speak the truth  my friend and the truth is often intimidating 

[Barothmuk]

.....can they have a leadership change anytime?

We've had 5 Prime Ministers over a span of 5 years. I've honestly not noticed much difference.

 

What boys? Wait let me guess.....you guys know the best candidate for your country right

So much for those Western values. Edited March 8, 2016 by Barothmuk

[BruceVC]

 

.....can they have a leadership change anytime?

We've had 5 Prime Ministers over a span of 5 years. I've honestly not noticed much difference.

 

What boys? Wait let me guess.....you guys know the best candidate for your country right

So much for those Western values.

 

Okay I see the contradiction in my post .....yes a free and fair election is part of Western ideology

 

I take back what I said earlier   

[Gfted1]

It makes me want to wash my eyes out with soap, but Im going to have to agree with BVC that "you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country". Imo, average people only "understand" a few key points that are important to their lives and really have no concept of what it takes in a leader to "run a country".

[Guard Dog]

Nevermind

Edited March 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

It makes me want to wash my eyes out with soap, but Im going to have to agree with BVC that "you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country". Imo, average people only "understand" a few key points that are important to their lives and really have no concept of what it takes in a leader to "run a country".

Yes, it sounds horrible to say it out loud as it sounds arrogant but its true...people focus on things that aren't relevant and then they sway the voting system a certain way

 

But as Baro pointed out we can't really do anything about it I suppose?

[BruceVC]

Nevermind

Which post are you referring to GD?

 

I may have done it several times 

[Guard Dog]

 

Nevermind

Which post are you referring to GD?

 

I may have done it several times 

 

After eight years of Barack Obama I suddenly find I don't entirely disagree. 

[Elerond]

But luckily in democratic systems the purpose isn't to find best person to run the country, but to get people to find consensus which direction country should go (for better or worse don't really matter as long as there is direction).  

Edited March 8, 2016 by Elerond

[BruceVC]

But luckily in democratic systems the purpose isn't to find best person to run the country, but to get people to find consensus which direction country should go (for better or worse don't really matter as long as there is direction).  

Consensus in the USA political theater   ......son whatever you smoking I want some 

[BruceVC]

Elerond do you know what the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is nowadays ?

[Elerond]

Elerond do you know what the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is nowadays ?

 

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news.

 

 

EDIT: So you could say that difference is that Dems isn't GOP and GOP isn't Dems. There is no consistency no clear agenda, no nothing. They just oppose each other for sake of opposing each other. That isn't democracy really it is just plain stupidity IMO.

 

Of course news don't usually cover the small decision that really control how country works but those big "newsworthy" debates that usually mean quite little in long run. But things like TPP get quite little notice and get bipartisan support. So there is clear consensus which direction US is going and then there is the war between parties for show.

 

But really I can't tell clear difference between Dems and GOP, because I can't find clear consensus what those parties try to accomplish. Their leadership say things but that isn't matched by what their members say and what kind propositions and politics those parties drive. In many cases it seems that Republicans and Democrats from one state are closer to each other in politics than they are their party members from state from other side of US. Often I get feeling that even parties in EU parliament have more consistent view of things than republicans and democrats.  So my final answer to this question is 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Elerond

[Drowsy Emperor]

I did wake up in a parallel universe

[Guard Dog]

If there is one thing I could drill into the heads of the 250 some odd million voting age citizens in the US it is this: The Constitution of the Unites States created a government of three branches with different responsibilities. And their power is LIMITED to just those responsibilities. When one branch of government exceeds it's authority and is allowed to do so by the other two, this is a big, big problem. It should terrify you. It should be punished at the ballot box. When a presidential candidate all but promises to respect no law or constraint on the power of the Executive Branch you SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR THEM! Three of the five likely candidates have all done that! Two of those three is the most likely 45th President. Have you people learned nothing from Obama? From Nixon? Jesus f-----g Christ at least Nixon wasn't allowed to get away with it. The goddamned Democrats and Republicans both in Congress rolled over on their backs and let Obama usurp their authority. And now the American voters are about to serve us up a slightly different flavor of the same toxic concoction?

 

There is a very real danger when a President overreaches and people like the outcome. Now the limits of the office are eroded. It will be easier for the next President to do more, and more for the one after. Sooner or later that power may be in the hands of someone truly dangerous. Most people don't seem to understand that. 

[BruceVC]

 

Elerond do you know what the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is nowadays ?

 

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news.

 

That is also true I'm afraid...there is political gridlock. The Republicans basically will try to oppose Obama on anything they can

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

Republicans are tired of big government spending and interference in how they run the states

 

Other people can correct me or add something else  

[Guard Dog]

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

Edited March 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine?

 

GD are you worried about  a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran

 

What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think repeal  Obamacare?

Edited March 8, 2016 by BruceVC

[Gorth]

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

 

 

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine?

 

GD are you worried about  a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran

 

What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare?

 

No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!"

 

Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992

 

What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty

[Amentep]

Okay well thats easy to address.....its not Deans fault the system is like that. Once Hilary is elected then you guys should push for changes

 

I just see that reason as a valid point but more a distraction as Dean cant change that

 

"The system" isn't fixable by the public at large - they have little to no say in how the Republican or Democratic party works.  The issue isn't about the actual electoral system (wonky as it is) but a peculiarity of the Democratic Party nomination system ran by the party itself.  Only the big wigs in the party can fix that.  Hillary, being a big wig who could win because of it, is unlikely to see a reason to change it.

 

 

It makes me want to wash my eyes out with soap, but Im going to have to agree with BVC that "you can't expect the average common citizen to really understand who is the best person to run a country". Imo, average people only "understand" a few key points that are important to their lives and really have no concept of what it takes in a leader to "run a country".

 

I'd imagine that most people who are running for the job - even seasoned politicians - don't really understand what they're getting into, so it's all good. In theory those Constitutional checks and balances are supposed to keep even the worst candidate from being able to run things into the ground.  If they're allowed to work the way they're supposed to.

 

 

But for me the main difference is Obama believes that the Federal government needs to sometimes intervene in the states to achieve a more equitable society....like the Gay Marriage Bill

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

 

This ship sailed when the states allowed themselves to be ransomed so they could keep getting federal funds if and only if they instituted things like seat belt laws*, IMO.  It set the stage (again IMO) for the Federal Government to feel that by hook or by crook it could force the states to do what it wanted.  And most of the states went "we need this money" and went for it.

 

*This shouldn't be taken as some sort of statement that I'm against seat belt laws. Always buckle up, mmmkay?