|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 05 2016 02:29 TMagpie wrote:
In the US the citizens choose each member of the legislature. That there are only two parties representing them was crafted by the voters and not by some system that enforces it.
No, FPTP forces parties to combine into one despite conflicting views because winning is the only thing that matters and the only way to get any influence at all.
Its in the name ffs. Winning gets you everything, losing gets you nothing.
|
United States43952 Posts
On August 05 2016 02:29 TMagpie wrote:
In the US the citizens choose each member of the legislature. That there are only two parties representing them was crafted by the voters and not by some system that enforces it.
No, that's not how it works. We all know how members of the legislature are elected, there is no confusion there. The problem is that the system is a constituency based simple plurality system because the founders simply copied the system from England. It's an extremely bad system that almost always (except in regional cases like Quebec or Scotland) leads to two parties which monopolize power because of how simple plurality works. No offence but honestly I don't think you're sufficiently informed on the subject to be involved in this discussion. Reread the posts on this page, it's a discussion of the merits and faults of FPTP (what you use) and PR and how FPTP rewards the creation of two dominant parties. The founders didn't mandate that there would only be two parties but they created a system which would only ever allow two parties to have political power.
It's not the voters, it's the system. If you disagree then you don't understand how the system works.
|
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page)
|
@TMagpie (sorry if this is wrong)
It was crafted by both and its the only outcome a FPTP can have.
If your vote on a fringe candidate most likely won't do anything, you won't vote for that candidate/your vote doesn't mean anything.
If your a candidate you join one of the parties most likely to get seats that allready have name recognition and power/money.
Its just an absolutely horrible system.
We also mainly vote on "heads" and not parties in Switzerland, yet we don't need FPTP... Not that the system is perfect here, not at all, but there is absolutely no reason for FPTP except to strenghten allready established parties or "heads" which allready have name recognition instead of true diversity that reflects the people.
|
On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page)
At that point she had not been subjected to 8 years of witch hunting.
|
|
|
United States43952 Posts
That doesn't even make sense. If people on planes want to fly them into buildings then being turned away at the US immigration checkpoint in the arrivals terminal of an airport isn't a huge barrier to entry. If the plane lands safely and they get to the immigration checkpoint then they've already not done 9/11. Sure the terrorists were already in the US for 9/11 but that's because Trump's rules weren't in effect. But if Trump's rules had been in effect that would be no barrier to them getting on planes over the United States.
|
On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page)
Probably because the effects of her decisions were not yet as clear as they are now.
For me personally, I knew that she'd be terrible FP after her involvement with the Yugoslavia/Kosovo issue, but very few people care about that or even know how significant it was.
|
On August 05 2016 02:52 KwarK wrote:
That doesn't even make sense. If people on planes want to fly them into buildings then being turned away at the US immigration checkpoint in the arrivals terminal of an airport isn't a huge barrier to entry. If the plane lands safely and they get to the immigration checkpoint then they've already not done 9/11. Sure the terrorists were already in the US for 9/11 but that's because Trump's rules weren't in effect. But if Trump's rules had been in effect that would be no barrier to them getting on planes over the United States.
The fact that you think Trump's statements need to be even remotely coherent or sensible clearly means your standards are wayyy too high 
|
On August 05 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page) Probably because the effects of her decisions were not yet as clear as they are now. For me personally, I knew that she'd be terrible FP after her involvement with the Yugoslavia/Kosovo issue, but very few people care about that or even know how significant it was.
Pretty sure its been 4 years of witch hunting by congress using 5 separate committees in an investigation that lasted longer than Water Gate and the 9/11 investigation. And after all of that, no charges were brought by congress even though they are fully empowered to do so.
Really, it speaks to the incompetence of congress that after all that all they could muster is a high unfavorable rating. They don't even feel confident enough to appoint a special procurator.
|
On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page)
People also didn't dislike Trump to this degree before his candidacy.
|
On August 05 2016 02:41 Velr wrote:
@TMagpie (sorry if this is wrong)
It was crafted by both and its the only outcome a FPTP can have.
If your vote on a fringe candidate most likely won't do anything, you won't vote for that candidate/your vote doesn't mean anything.
If your a candidate you join one of the parties most likely to get seats that allready have name recognition and power/money.
Its just an absolutely horrible system.
We also mainly vote on "heads" and not parties in Switzerland, yet we don't need FPTP... Not that the system is perfect here, not at all, but there is absolutely no reason for FPTP except to strenghten allready established parties or "heads" which allready have name recognition instead of true diversity that reflects the people.
In the US you get to vote for a councilman (who dictates what your local area actually will be), a mayor (who manages the various services that runs the city your local area is located in) you also vote for your judges, state politicians, etc...
You can nominate strict fiscal conservatives for your city to ensure budget control, democratic state congressmen to push for social programs, fiscal focused and constitutional progressives for a governor, so on and so forth and actually work on crafting a government body both from the local, city, region, state, and federal level. The ONLY time you are "trapped" with a party is because you only vote for te presidency. You can have any damn party you want spread across local elections that are much much smaller and much easier to win without being on a DNC or RNC ticket.
The problem is the American people not the system.
|
The “Bring Congress Back” calls from Democrats are in full swing.
More than 40 Senate Democrats sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan on Thursday, pushing the two top Republicans to reconvene Congress so lawmakers can pass funding to deal with the Zika virus.
Democratic senators blocked legislation that would provide $1.1 billion to deal with the virus’ rise in the United States shortly before Congress left Washington for a seven-week recess last month. They objected to provisions in the measure dealing with Planned Parenthood funding and other issues that Democrats insisted were extraneous.
“The problems the American people confront do not disappear simply because Congress does. In the case of the rapidly expanding Zika crisis, the problem has grown significantly worse since the Republican-led Congress went on recess,” the Democrats wrote to the GOP leaders. “We urge you to immediately cancel the remainder of the congressional recess and get back to work to help the American public, especially women and families, amidst this crisis.”
The Zika crisis grew more urgent last week, when the government confirmed in Florida the first case of the virus that was transmitted locally. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a warning for pregnant women and their partners to avoid traveling to a neighborhood in Miami.
Don Stewart, a spokesman for McConnell, dismissed the Democrats’ complaints about the Zika measure they filibustered in July, which was negotiated by Republicans without signoff from Democrats. For instance, that Zika measure included more fine print on how the Zika funds would be distributed, and Democrats chose instead to try and strip out the money altogether, Stewart said.
“While the House passed the funding bill already, it continues to be blocked by the signatories of the Senate Democrats’ letter through the use of a filibuster,” Stewart said. “We would love for the people who wrote the letter to end that filibuster and pass the bill, but it doesn’t sound like they’re prepared to do that. Apparently, Senate Democrats thought an earmark for Planned Parenthood in the future was more important than preventing the threat of Zika now.”
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is running for reelection, has also urged Congress to reconvene to deal with the Zika crisis in his home state.
Source
|
Of course the GOP would attack PP through funding measure to fight what could be major health concern. Because they they are still under the delusion that they can trick the public into blaming Obama or the democrats.
|
On August 05 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 02:58 LegalLord wrote:On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page) Probably because the effects of her decisions were not yet as clear as they are now. For me personally, I knew that she'd be terrible FP after her involvement with the Yugoslavia/Kosovo issue, but very few people care about that or even know how significant it was. Pretty sure its been 4 years of witch hunting by congress using 5 separate committees in an investigation that lasted longer than Water Gate and the 9/11 investigation. And after all of that, no charges were brought by congress even though they are fully empowered to do so. Really, it speaks to the incompetence of congress that after all that all they could muster is a high unfavorable rating. They don't even feel confident enough to appoint a special procurator.
I think it's both. There are genuine issues that Hillary is bad at that the Republicans don't pursue because they are more guilty than she is on those issues. There are also pet issues like Benghazi that they try to use to say she's dirty without drawing attention to their involvement in the bigger issues like Libya.
|
On August 05 2016 03:13 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2016 02:40 zlefin wrote:
It's interesting how Hillary had better favorable/unfavorable ratings during her tenure as secretary of state.
Not sure what to make of that, just interesting. (noted by looking through the link to polling data someone posted on the prior page) People also didn't dislike Trump to this degree before his candidacy.
I disliked him approximately the same since he started pushing the crazy conspiracy theory about President Obama. What people don't realize (it seems anyway) is that Trump, in all his glory, represents a significant part of this country.
A part of this country, Republicans especially, have denied existed in any significant number, particularly in their party.
|
Ahm... A guy with enough money to fuck up and fuck up and fuck up and still have the EASIEST life imagineable represents much of America?
No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a clue, he maybe has some on first sight a few similar views, but he came to these views on WAY diffrent roads and if really looked at, aren't the same at all anymore.
|
On August 05 2016 03:47 Velr wrote:
Ahm... A guy with enough money to fuck up and fuck up and fuck up and still have the EASIEST life imagineable represents much of America?
No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a clue, he maybe has some on first sight a few similar views, but he came to these views on WAY diffrent roads and if really looked at, aren't the same at all anymore.
GH means he represents the racist/bigot uneducated crowd.
|
The expanding power of the presidency.
President Obama has decided to seek a new United Nations Security Council resolution that would call for an end to nuclear testing, a move that leading lawmakers are calling an end run around Congress.
Top administration officials, including Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, briefed lawmakers and congressional staffers this week about President Obama’s decision to push for the U.N. action this September, to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was adopted in September 1996 but was never ratified by the Senate.
National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price told me that the administration still would like to see the Senate ratify the test ban treaty but is “looking at possible action in the UN Security Council that would call on states not to test and support the CTBT’s objectives. We will continue to explore ways to achieve this goal, being careful to protect the Senate’s constitutional role.”
The administration did not consult Congress before making the decision, and leading Republicans, including those who opposed Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, are irate that the White House plans another major national security move without their advice or consent.
www.washingtonpost.com
|
On August 05 2016 03:47 Velr wrote:
Ahm... A guy with enough money to fuck up and fuck up and fuck up and still have the EASIEST life imagineable represents much of America?
No, he doesn't. He doesn't have a clue, he maybe has some on first sight a few similar views, but he came to these views on WAY diffrent roads and if really looked at, aren't the same at all anymore.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. "Represents" as in 10's of millions of Americans agree with him, no matter how ridiculous what he says is or how he got there.
He should be a walking example of how America isn't a meritocracy, but that seems to fly right over most people's heads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
