-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
Because winning the popular vote doesn't get you the Presidency, winning the electoral vote does. But everybody knows this going into it to begin with, right? At least I thought so...
It should come as no surpise to Al Gore that he was not elected President despite having won the popular vote. I would be very, very dubious about his Ivy League degree had he though otherwise....
Besides, Albert Gore (our treasured Nobel laureate) isn't alone. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election in 1824 and there may be others. Dem's da' breaks when you know the rules. I'm just astonished at how many dummies don't know the rules... Well, actually I'm not. Probably over 50% of Americans can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House.... And that's why our country sucks now.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
Because winning the popular vote doesn't get you the Presidency, winning the electoral vote does. But everybody knows this going into it to begin with, right? At least I thought so...
It should come as no surpise to Al Gore that he was not elected President despite having won the popular vote. I would be very, very dubious about his Ivy League degree had he though otherwise....
Besides, Albert Gore (our treasured Nobel laureate) isn't alone. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election in 1824 and there may be others. Dem's da' breaks when you know the rules. I'm just astonished at how many dummies don't know the rules... Well, actually I'm not. Probably over 50% of Americans can't name the Vice President or the Speaker of the House.... And that's why our country sucks now.
No they don't but why bother voting if the popular vote isn't going to win. The Electoral College isn't even under any obligation to go with the popular vote in the first place. SO when people say every vote counts that isn't always true.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
No they don't but why bother voting if the popular vote isn't going to win. The Electoral College isn't even under any obligation to go with the popular vote in the first place. SO when people say every vote counts that isn't always true.
Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.
Oh and btw Gore won Florida.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.
Oh and btw Gore won Florida.
Jeb Bush fixed that small issue. :)
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
I think most historians agree that FDR's New Deal was crucial to saving the USA at its most economically challenged moment, but that real, incremental economic growth did not return to the country until the 1940s when its industrial capacity grew to meet the needs of the Second World War -total war has a way of using all the people it can get -men go to war, women go to work -but like Keynes's temporary solution to the slump, it can only be temporary -famously, in the 1950s, the men came home from the war and the women went home from work. There is also the theory that FDR 'allowed' the Japanese to attack the USA precisely to engineer the war that would rescue the American economy, but that is another thread. And these days, wars seem to cost more than they are worth.
On the other hand, I believe this mystical faith in markets will not deliver jobs in the way its disciples claim -what is it that America is going to make that cannot be made in China at such uncompetitive rates? I am confident that some growth will return, but I think it will be disappointing, that is the nature of the structural shift that is taking place. What will be interesting is to see the impact of the decline of economic growth in China over the next ten years, this could benefit the US economy, but again, I just don't see high volume jobs returning in the near future, and that is the reality to which people must adjust. It means, incidentally, if you are a college graduate in your 20s, you should be looking for work in Asia or Latin America.
Correct me if I am wrong, Bush was awarded the Presidency by the Electoral College, it was 'just' confirmed by the Supreme Court; and your Electoral College is part of the democratic process that performs its duties every four years....?
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I think most historians agree that FDR's New Deal was crucial to saving the USA at its most economically challenged moment, but that real, incremental economic growth did not return to the country until the 1940s when its industrial capacity grew to meet the needs of the Second World War -total war has a way of using all the people it can get -men go to war, women go to work -but like Keynes's temporary solution to the slump, it can only be temporary -famously, in the 1950s, the men came home from the war and the women went home from work. There is also the theory that FDR 'allowed' the Japanese to attack the USA precisely to engineer the war that would rescue the American economy, but that is another thread. And these days, wars seem to cost more than they are worth.
On the other hand, I believe this mystical faith in markets will not deliver jobs in the way its disciples claim -what is it that America is going to make that cannot be made in China at such uncompetitive rates? I am confident that some growth will return, but I think it will be disappointing, that is the nature of the structural shift that is taking place. What will be interesting is to see the impact of the decline of economic growth in China over the next ten years, this could benefit the US economy, but again, I just don't see high volume jobs returning in the near future, and that is the reality to which people must adjust. It means, incidentally, if you are a college graduate in your 20s, you should be looking for work in Asia or Latin America.
Correct me if I am wrong, Bush was awarded the Presidency by the Electoral College, it was 'just' confirmed by the Supreme Court; and your Electoral College is part of the democratic process that performs its duties every four years....?
Right, the Supreme Court ordered them to halt the count in Florida where it was, with Bush in the lead, effectively handing him the presidency. Had they counted all the ballots Gore would have been president.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
I think the formula sounds perfectly reasonable and is still a conservative underestimate of true poverty, much like the unemployment rate is an underestimate of true unemployment.
We can agree that the government lies about true unemployment (just like they lie about inflation). We will probably never agree on what 'true poverty' is however. I feel that my goal as a citizen and a human being is over if my fellow man has clothes, shelter, and food to eat. I am responsible for nothing else unless I choose to be through charitable donations (which I personally would do). I believe that anything else, including things such as medical care, should be charitable and out of the realm of government involvement. I do not feel responsible for paying for somebodies education, internet, entertainment, transportation, etc... You see, not having things should be incentive for working hard and achieving them. The welfare culture that we've created has instead created a society content on living off of hand outs without seeking any kind of self-improvement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
You didn't make any points here, just ranting and insults.
No, I made a very important point. My point was that ALL PEOPLE vote (and do things in general) for thier own self-interests. It's basic human nature and the premise on which the entire foundation of capitalism is founded. I'm glad you recognize and acknowledge this. If the indigent vote in thier self interest then why wouldn't every other human being in any other capacity or social status do the exact same thing? Why wouldn't a company make decisions that exclusively benefit the company and its shareholders? Nothing wrong with this line of thinking at all my friend. That's reality. That is how the world works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
It seems like you gave up debating and are now repeating talking points. This doesn't even pass the smell test for intellectual honesty. Yes inequality has risen (remember OWS?) but social security, medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits etc have been arresting the process not accelerating it.
Arresting the process? I doubt you could find evidence to support that claim. Let me help you....x2. 'These programs have arrested the acceleration of debt inequality by x2', therefore they are a roaring success!'. No, I'm just being sarcastic now. I think you fail to realize that America has the best, fattest, most cared for poor, lower middle, and middle class in all the world. It's just that that isn't good enough for you. You won't happy until........ well, actually, I don't know WHAT would ever make you happy. Maybe it is zero rich people, zero poor people, and 100 percent middle class people. What would make you happy? Give me something in quantitative terms that you could be happy with. Hell, the progressives can't even come up with a fair number to tax the rich. Every time they are asked the question they balk and walk the other way. The only answer they ever have is 'more'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
This is just basic stuff. But I'm glad that you finally acknowledge the gross levels inequality has reached in this country and the destabilizing effects this has for democracy.
I don't acknowledge any 'gross levels' of inequality, although I do think that some people have done things that should put them in jail (both in the corporate world and the federal government). I also think that people who think like you encourage 'destabalizing' effects by promoting class warfare. Your kind will never be satisfied with equal opportunity, only equal outcomes - and the only way to get that is to take it by force using government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
This is from the same author you cited who puts the Japanese mistake not in fiscal stimulus but in a tax hike, which Keynes would oppose while still in a recession.
Isnt' that exactly what the progressives and the OWS crowd is clamoring for right now? Tax hikes on the evil 1%! The rich aren't paying thier fair share! Lets' get them!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Right everyone agrees the recession would have been worse but you claim without evidence it would have been shorter.
Not only do I think it would have been shorter but I think that it wouldn't have had any of the collateral damage that you are creating. S. Korea had a recession in the late 90's that was very brief and had a remarkable recovery. Austrians point to the fact that it was because the government remained hands-off more or less. I have to invetigate this more for details but I recall having read this. In the meanwhile you can chew on this:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/10/news...tune/index.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Ah, but the data DO show that. I know it irks you because you're relying on emotions not evidence but the stimulus averted disaster, saved 2 million jobs, provided a x2 multiplier back to GDP for what we spent and we desperately need more of it as most economists agree.
You just make up bollocks don't you? 'Averted disaster', saved 2 million jobs.....the nutty 'x2' multiplier.........lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Again this comes down to different goals, you want to bankrupt the country and I don't.
Ummm.... how can I be the one who wants to bankrupt the country when YOU'RE the one who wants to spend all of the borrowed money? I don't want to bankrupt the country! I don't want to spend the money! YOU are the one who wants to bankrupt the country because you won't stop spending money even though you have NOTHING in the way of a plan that cuts spending and pays down the debt. YOU are the one that wants bankruptcy, I just want to watch you do it so I can laugh at you and all the misery and despair you cause in the process. Oh and make no mistake - you will win. Your policies will become reality becaue I think you will be able to subvert most Americans into thinking that they should never accept cuts in social programs even though you will never find a way to pay for them. Americans are stupid and most of them will vote for your hand-out packages and loot and riot in the street as you stoke the flames of discord and class warfare. Fuck it. I've got an AR-15 and lots of ammo. Let's GIT-R-DONE!
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Votes certainly aren't equal in weight. As a voter in NY my vote counts much less than someone in a battleground state like Ohio. The marginal impact of a New Yorker's vote is quite low in comparison. Not only are votes unequal, but some residents are more represented than others. If NY has like 20 million people and Montana has only 1 million but each state gets 2 Senators, the citizens of Montana are much MORE represented in Congress than New Yorkers are. The Grand Bargain is a bitch if you're from a populous state.
Oh and btw Gore won Florida.
But what about all of the seats in the House that NY gets because of the population? Montana doesn't get that many seats. You're argument is absurd. Plus, you make the assumption that 2 Sentators from Montana would vote differently than 2 senators from New York. They may in 2012, but this is simply coincidence. What about the 2 senators from Hawaii? They would balance out the 2 from Montana easily. The Senate was never intended to represent population distributions - the house is. Your argument fails here on the facts as does the rest of your blather.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Had they counted all the ballots Gore would have been president.
This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)
The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.
Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)
The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.
Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.
Yes having Dubya lie about WMD was a helluva lot better.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
But what about all of the seats in the House that NY gets because of the population? Montana doesn't get that many seats. You're argument is absurd. Plus, you make the assumption that 2 Sentators from Montana would vote differently than 2 senators from New York. They may in 2012, but this is simply coincidence. What about the 2 senators from Hawaii? They would balance out the 2 from Montana easily. The Senate was never intended to represent population distributions - the house is. Your argument fails here on the facts as does the rest of your blather.
I'm concerned about your lack of civics knowledge. You're getting less sensible and more antagonistic the more you post. It's sad you don't understand this but let me try to help you. See, there are 50 states and each state gets 2 senators for a total of 100 Senators. Still with me? Now each senator has the ability to hold up business indefinitely in the Senate if he or she were to decide to do so. Remember Jim Bunning a few years back? Now each state has 2 of these powerful people who can stop business in one of the two houses of Congress. Even if every Representative from a particular state would act together they would never approach this amount of negative power. This is why people in less populous states are MORE represented. This is introductory political science. Try not being an ideologue for a second and start worrying about reality.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
This is just a blatant lie. Bush won the recount in Florida and actually picked up more votes on the recount (which was thrown out anyway)
The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election. However, the study also showed that the result of a statewide recount of all disputed ballots could have been different. The study was unable to review the ballots in Broward and Volusia that were counted as legal votes during the manual recounts thus analysis included those figures that were obtained using very loose standards in its calculations. Since these recounts resulted in a sizable net gain for Gore (665 net Gore votes) they have no bearing on the assessment that Bush would likely have won the recounts requested by Gore and ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. They do however play a major role in the assessment that Gore could have won a recount of the entire state if overvotes were taken into account. Without these votes Gore would have lost a recount of the entire state even with all overvotes added in. Unless 495 or more of those votes were actual votes then Gore still would lose. Note these figures also do not take into account a dispute over 500 asbentee ballots that Bush requested to be added to the certified totals. If found to be legal votes that would put Gore totally out of reach regardless of any manual recount standard.
Al Gore was a LOSER by any standard you want to come up with, but it tickles me pink that some people are still bitter about it 10 years after the fact! Hey, I'm not a big fan of 'dubbya', but I'm sure as hell glad that Al Gore lost so he could spend the next decade lying to world about global warming.
Even the article that you copy and pasted (twice) admits that Gore wins if all the ballots are counted. Get your head out of your ass.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
I'm concerned about your lack of civics knowledge. You're getting less sensible and more antagonistic the more you post. It's sad you don't understand this but let me try to help you. See, there are 50 states and each state gets 2 senators for a total of 100 Senators. Still with me? Now each senator has the ability to hold up business indefinitely in the Senate if he or she were to decide to do so. Remember Jim Bunning a few years back? Now each state has 2 of these powerful people who can stop business in one of the two houses of Congress. Even if every Representative from a particular state would act together they would never approach this amount of negative power. This is why people in less populous states are MORE represented. This is introductory political science. Try not being an ideologue for a second and start worrying about reality.
Are you talking about a filibuster or Senate holds? If you're talking about holds then it isn't so much an individual move as it is a 'party' move, because you need leadership to agree to it. But still, you automatically asume that Montana Senators and New York senators are at odds, a contention that I disagree with. A senator from California could do the same thing to you, but you don't imagine that as a possibility because you think alike politically.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
Even the article that you copy and pasted (twice) admits that Gore wins if all the ballots are counted. Get your head out of your ass.
Oh lord, read the last sentance you fucking dummy.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
No, I made a very important point.
So your point was that you agreed with me. Took you a while to get there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
What would make you happy? Give me something in quantitative terms that you could be happy with. Hell, the progressives can't even come up with a fair number to tax the rich. Every time they are asked the question they balk and walk the other way. The only answer they ever have is 'more'.
I would be happy with the current rates if they weren't riddled with loopholes. But there is no absolute moral tax rate for the rich. It depends upon the economy and the level of inequality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
I don't acknowledge any 'gross levels' of inequality,
So you don't recognize that inequality has reached levels unseen since the Gilded Age? It wouldn't surprise me, you deny most other inconvenient facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
Isnt' that exactly what the progressives and the OWS crowd is clamoring for right now? Tax hikes on the evil 1%! The rich aren't paying thier fair share! Lets' get them!
Taxes should be higher on the top earners, once the economy has recovered. Raising taxes during a slump is your contractionary game, not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
You just make up bollocks don't you? 'Averted disaster', saved 2 million jobs.....the nutty 'x2' multiplier.........lol.
It's not my fault you don't read and it's not my job to educate you. The numbers are real and easily verified. Google is your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
Ummm.... how can I be the one who wants to bankrupt the country when YOU'RE the one who wants to spend all of the borrowed money? I don't want to bankrupt the country!
Ahem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
I honestly hope that the US goes bankrupt one day !
Maybe you've changed your mind, I hope you have. It was a terrible goal, but at least your policies fit that goal. My goal remains the same: grow the economy, shrink unemployment, expand the middle class and the policies I espouse are backed by the best available evidence. Your position is backed only by your own fury and sense of indignation.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hard4janira
But still, you automatically asume that Montana Senators and New York senators are at odds, a contention that I disagree with. A senator from California could do the same thing to you, but you don't imagine that as a possibility because you think alike politically.
No, you dummy I don't assume that. YOU assume that. Good grief, think before you type.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Well BluegrassCat, I think we are finished here. I certainly am. I don't care to further any of this conversation. You may have the last word (I'm sure that it is very important to you).
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Knock off the partisan hackery. Gore won by the tens of thousands of ballots.
"Using ballot-level data from the NORC Florida ballots project and ballot-image files, I argue that overvoted ballots in the 2000 presidential election in Florida included more than 50,000 votes that were intended to go to either Bush or Gore but instead were discarded. This was primarily due to defective election administration in the state, especially the failure to use a system to warn each voter when too many marks were on a ballot and allow the voter to make corrections. If the best type of vote tabulation system used in Florida in 2000—precinct-tabulated optical scan ballots—had been used everywhere in the state, Gore would have won by more than 30,000 votes. Florida's election experience points to the need to gather ballot-level data to evaluate the success of election reform efforts now underway in much of the United States"
http://journals.cambridge.org/action...ine&aid=246603
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
It is a bit off kilter, but it occurred to me at the time that it would make sense for US voters to have a completely separate ballot paper for the Presidency, maybe even a diffierent colour, rather than have those weird looking ballot papers that look like lottery cards or a list of special offers from WalMart-I understand you have local country and state posts to vote for, but to put the whole lot on one ballot paper seems excessive to me -and it would, presumably, make counting the vote easier and more efficient.
Incidentally, here in the UK, we are given one small sheet of paper on which the candidates names and addresses and political affiliation are printed; and there is a pencil in the booth which we use to mark our preference with an X. We then fold up the ballot paper and put it in a black box.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
It would be nice if we could have online voting. But for some reason we haven't even gotten there and I don't we will ever get there. Which is highly ironic given the technical advances of these days.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
Yes having Dubya lie about WMD was a helluva lot better.
I hate to step in on this, but ever time I See this I can't help but comment. WHy s it that the Clintons, the Gores, The Kerry's and all the rest of the "Do gooders"of the 1990's said, emphatcally I might add, that they were SURE Saddham had WMDs and was a direct threat, and something needed to be done about it? I went on snopes asnd found that all those quotes floating around in those email chain-thingys were real. They all said it--Bush was not the first or only one to say he had WMDs, but he was the one to go after them. We gave them (the IRaqi's) 13 months to hide/destroy their stuff before we went in with inspectors, so nobody can sit back and say outright that "Bush Lied." The whole thing was one big clusterfuck, from both sides.
Having said that,I'm not defending him, rather, what I AM doing is trying to disspell that fucking phrase. I hate it. Seems like the only thing that the clinton administration DIDNT get away with is Ol Bill getting his dick sucked in secret. Everything else they said and did seemed to be pure gold (unless of course you're the fat-assed Rush Limbaugh... lol) In the era of "political correctness" all they had to do was sound concerned and it felt like things were being handled.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Silcc69
It would be nice if we could have online voting. But for some reason we haven't even gotten there and I don't we will ever get there. Which is highly ironic given the technical advances of these days.
It would be nice but there needs to be a paper trail.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
needsum
I hate to step in on this, but ever time I See this I can't help but comment. WHy s it that the Clintons, the Gores, The Kerry's and all the rest of the "Do gooders"of the 1990's said, emphatcally I might add, that they were SURE Saddham had WMDs and was a direct threat, and something needed to be done about it? I went on snopes asnd found that all those quotes floating around in those email chain-thingys were real. They all said it--Bush was not the first or only one to say he had WMDs, but he was the one to go after them. We gave them (the IRaqi's) 13 months to hide/destroy their stuff before we went in with inspectors, so nobody can sit back and say outright that "Bush Lied." The whole thing was one big clusterfuck, from both sides.
Having said that,I'm not defending him, rather, what I AM doing is trying to disspell that fucking phrase. I hate it. Seems like the only thing that the clinton administration DIDNT get away with is Ol Bill getting his dick sucked in secret. Everything else they said and did seemed to be pure gold (unless of course you're the fat-assed Rush Limbaugh... lol) In the era of "political correctness" all they had to do was sound concerned and it felt like things were being handled.
I think there is a case that he and his administration lied about the nuclear capabilities of Iraq, something that was controversial, as opposed to the chemical weapons that we knew Iraq had at one point. When he asserted Iraq had sought uranium from Africa and acquired tubes for making a nuclear bomb we have to guess about what he knew and when he knew it. While both assertions were false, there is a case that Bush believed the uranium claim but the tubes claim was known to be false by his administration when he said it. So maybe proving that he lied is impossible but he certainly said things that were untrue at a time when some in his administration knew they were untrue.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
I think at that point, all we had was socialism.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Here's my summary of the current political stalemate. It's a bit simplistic, but fits a short-post format like this.
There are the "haves" and the "have-nots".
The have-nots clamor for more of what they don't have : more health insurance, more financial assistance, more unemployment benefits, more social security benefits, etc. Meanwhile, the haves pay the bill (taxes).
Politically, the have-nots are powerful because they are numerous, while the haves pull the purse strings that pay for elections. Groups like "Americans for Tax Reform", which are financed by the haves, are very powerful. In the case of ATR, they require congressmen to pledge that they will not raise taxes. A very simple pledge that is easy to enforce. And if the congressman breaks the pledge, the ATR heavily funds someone who will follow the pledge.
The equilibrium (i.e. stalemate) is achieved thusly: For whatever political fervor the have-nots muster, the haves will match by spending exactly enough to counter-act it, through campaign contributions, advertising, and propoganda. The danger for the haves is that, through democracy, the have-nots could effectively steal what they have.
I'm not saying it's good or bad, just trying to explain how it works.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
The best way to rob a bank is to own one.
Oh yea, fuck you and your "gun control".
Gun control is being able to hit what you're aiming at asshole.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Ahhhh! We're back to arguing Bush v Gore & WMDs in Iraq. Almost as good as the fight over whether capitalism or socialism would have helpe man discover fire sooner.
More wisdom from the moron who said Credit Default Swaps and CDO's were "no big deal" three years ago.
Funny that.
You won't be thinking that when Europe tanks, dumb-ass.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.
If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.
What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.
I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yvonne183
Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.
If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.
What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.
I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.
They have been trying to get Ron Paul in there for years but he hasn't had much success. Democrats and the Republicans got this shit on lock plus they have media in there pockets. You'd think with congress being at an all time people would wake up and support a 3rd party candidate. But they will either vote the status quo or stay home.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yvonne183
Nothing much will come from these protests. Yea,, there will be some kind of window dressing and some leaders of the movement will get good jobs on Wall street but for the most part things will remain the same. Because most revolutions need the masses to be starving in order for real change to occur and people owning ipods, iphones and computers aren't starving.
If the protesters feel that the fed is being controlled by big money then they should do some learning. I understand that history isn't a hot subject in schools anymore but the protesters should learn from history on how to control the gov't to their needs. Just look back to the Tammany Hall Machine of old NYC. Although they were corrupt as hell, one can learn from them in how to use the vote to control the gov't for themselves.
What is lacking from the protest movement and I think the same can be said with unions as well, and that is they rely on democrats and maybe in some way republican parties for leadership. They try and make democrats and republicans do their bidding when a better way would be to put one of your own kind in power. They hope that change can come from the usual suspects that infest the fed gov't.
I know what I say is a bit confusing but what I am trying to say is the protesters(and unions) should not align with any party, instead use their numbers to elect one of their own. Don't rely on a democrat to make change, do it for yourself.
It is not confusing, Yvonne, its the fact that you have created a two-party system that controls central and state governments, and it has proven impossible to break or replace over many decades. New parties tend not to emerge and gain political power in established democracies, even in the case of Italy where the party system collapsed after the Cold War, the remnants re-grouped under different names, even Berlusconi's vehicle was in effect a resurrection of the Christian Democrats. What this means is that change, if it ever happens, happens at the margins rather than at the core. That is why some people, when they realise they can't beat the system, decide to join it. I was once even told by someone offering an excuse for this sideways step from radical street protest to the corridors of power -I can't change things out here, but I can in there. Last I heard he gave up on politics altogether. The USA would have to fall apart in a new civil war before the system is changed. Assuming that works...
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beandip
More wisdom from the moron who said Credit Default Swaps and CDO's were "no big deal" three years ago.
Funny that.
You won't be thinking that when Europe tanks, dumb-ass.
LIAR!
If you can find it, quote it. You won't because it didn't happen.
You're confused & don't know what tou're talking about.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
November 23, 2011, 2:32 pm
Fatalism and the American Dream
By CATHERINE RAMPELL http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...therine.50.jpg
Dollars to doughnuts.
Two of my colleagues have alluded to a recent Pew Research Center report on American exceptionalism, paying particular attention to the fact that Americans are more likely to say their culture is superior to others than are people in Germany, Spain, Britain or France.
One finding of the report that received little attention, however, was about cultural attitudes toward success. Of the five nationalities polled, Americans were least likely to believe that success in life was determined by forces outside our control.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...ss-custom1.jpg
Just 36 percent of Americans believe in this fatalistic statement, while the vast majority of their compatriots are greater believers in self-determination. Put another way, Americans are (not surprisingly) more likely to believe in the American dream.
Americans with less education are more fatalistic, however. The study found that 22 percent of college graduates believe they have little control over their fate, compared to 41 percent of Americans without a college degree.
Even so, American nongraduates still seem to think they have more control over their destinies than the average German, Frenchman or Spaniard does. Almost three-quarters of Germans, for example, believe that success is determined by factors outside our control.
These findings are particularly interesting when juxtaposed with a separate report from the Pew Economic Mobility project. That report, which examined economic and social mobility in 10 Western countries, found that Americans actually appear to have less control over their success in life than their counterparts do.
In particular, the educational attainment of a person’s parents — a factor usually determined before that person’s birth — seems to matter more for mobility in the United States.
“There is a stronger link between parental education and children’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes than in any other country investigated,” the report says.
As Richard Wilkinson suggested in a recent TED Talk, if you want to live the American dream — and have greater control over your own likelihood of success — you should probably move to Denmark, where the poor have a better chance of moving up in the world.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
To the left of President Obama a female in a purplish top is clapping at the 26 second mark... ha ha! Supporting the protesters.
Mic Check Obama - YouTube
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Maybe this isn't occupy related but it might make some sense.
Any alternative political group can control the US gov't, they don't need to be dems or repubs and they don't even need a majority to do so.
The congress and especially the senate are so tightly woven between dems and repubs that if a small group takes only 5 or senate seats would rule the country. Because both parties vote along party lines and because there is almost an even number of dems and repubs that this group of 5 senators would swing their vote in any way that pleases them. If they agree with a democrat position, they could swing their vote towards the dems and vise verca. So in effect they would control congress cause neither dems or repubs would get anything past without these swing votes, that is unless the dems and repubs agree and don't need their swing vote,, that day will be the same day Satan goes ice skating.
I think this is what is wrong with alternative political parties here in the US. They seem to think they need a majority in order to have a say. But I think they could rule if they have just enough votes to swing a policy which way they want. Of course the Pres can veto things but he/she can't veto everything. People got to learn how to use the system. Protesting is cute,, but if one learns the system they can tweek it to work for them without coming out like cry babies. If the big business and banks can do, it then so can anyone, brains aren't limited just for the rich.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
In this country, an MP who has been a member of say, the Conservative Party, and elected as such, can change if he wants to, just by saying: As of today I shall sit in Parliament as an Independent -usually such people join one of the other Parties -Churchill was a Liberal MP until the Liberal Party was sent into the wilderness when the Labour Party became so popular -so Churchill joined the Conservatives (many of whom loathed him and regarded him as a political opportunist, which he was). People argue if an MP changes party he should put it to a new vote, but they rarely do -MP's in the UK are elected to represent a place, not people or party, legally speaking. After all, there used to be 'rotten boroughs' in the 19th century where MP's were elected from constituencies where there were maybe two residents.
Can it happen in the USA? Eg, could like-minded Democrats and Republicans form a new party in the House after an election? Could the President form a new party with supporters in the Senate and House after an election, and without seeking new elections? I don't know.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
In this country, an MP who has been a member of say, the Conservative Party, and elected as such, can change if he wants to, just by saying: As of today I shall sit in Parliament as an Independent -usually such people join one of the other Parties -Churchill was a Liberal MP until the Liberal Party was sent into the wilderness when the Labour Party became so popular -so Churchill joined the Conservatives (many of whom loathed him and regarded him as a political opportunist, which he was). People argue if an MP changes party he should put it to a new vote, but they rarely do -MP's in the UK are elected to represent a place, not people or party, legally speaking. After all, there used to be 'rotten boroughs' in the 19th century where MP's were elected from constituencies where there were maybe two residents.
Can it happen in the USA? Eg, could like-minded Democrats and Republicans form a new party in the House after an election? Could the President form a new party with supporters in the Senate and House after an election, and without seeking new elections? I don't know.
I'm not entirely sure of the Constitutionally of it, but it's highly unlikely. Members of Congress do switch political parties on occasion, which to me is a odd. If you're going to switch parties because of ideological concerns, do it prior to the election. What you're suggesting sounds more like a non violent coup. There has always from time to time been a moderately successful 3rd party presidential contender, Ross Perot being the latest, but here's the problem. Independents tend to be "moderate" and squishy and lack the ideological conviction that most voters look for. And the mechanisms ( money) always flows to the 2 parties and an independent or 3rd party candidate will never be able to mount a serious threat without that. Obama will raise a billion dollars for his 2012 run and it's largely about the money. The US can be governed by the current 2 party political system because that framework has allowed it to be the greatest experiment of individual freedoms and force for good the world has seen....but what's lacking is leaders. People follow leaders....not vice versa. Southern Democrats set their party affiliation aside and voted for Reagan twice, moderate Republicans liked Clinton's move to the middle and voted for him twice, but those individuals were skilled politicians and the understood and read the electorate. The current occupant does not possess those skills, and has not been able to transition from campaigning to actually governing a country as diverse as the US. So while the 2 party system presents huge monetary and ideological challenges, it can and has been managed.
-
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest
