Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 dogma wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
@dogma: The old religious guard is dead, its last major gasp was spent on Santorum's failed run at the GOP nomination in 2012.

Oh, it is most assuredly alive and kicking. It has lost some power at the Presidential level, but it is still quite strong below that.

Sure. The proverbial rats are always in the sewer, waiting for a foothold to come above ground, and they always will be. But as a national movement that desires to control the UNited States of America. Dead as a doornail. I imagine Huckabee and Cruz will be the proud Captains who go down with the ship, but they are done. The entire population has changed within the last 10 years.

They had their time. Their widely known policy ideas were bad then. They are still bad now. They are done. I'm calling it, like seeing a boxer take too many punches

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

Radical restructuring of society to instead use an economic system that is egalitarian. That is, to put it mildly, easier said than done. The current situation is going to break sooner or later, though, and can't provide a solution to the problems it creates. We have precious few other options.

If full communism happened overnight because someone finally found the lamp with the Lenidjinn in it we'd still be quite busy managing the ecological fall-out our industry has so far created.

Never gunna happen here buddy.

"Ecological fall-out"... wut?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

We need more transparency laws.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.

Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

We need more transparency laws.

Not necessarily. IIRC it was a 5/4 decision (on some pretty shaky reasoning IMO). A different supreme court decision could easily overturn it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.

Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.

Not sure how you would do that though. If we take the power from the feds and give it to the states we will still have the same problems, it just means there would be a lot more polititions you have to influence

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

We need more transparency laws.

Not necessarily. IIRC it was a 5/4 decision (on some pretty shaky reasoning IMO). A different supreme court decision could easily overturn it.

We'd be old geezer if it gets to that point.

Can they reverse Kelo while they're at it?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

How would you address that then?

I good start would be to overturn Citizens United.

I don't know what other countries do, but I think a good step would be the removal of money from political campaigning.

As long as politicians, through their offices, have services to sell there will be money involved. Take away more of their power instead of allowing it to continue to grow and you begin to lessen the their influence and hence their value. When Big Money can take advantage of the Big Political Class, and that Political Class LOVES that money, you end up with what we see now.

Stop the growth and even better, shrink the gov't and their power, and they will attract less money.

Not sure how you would do that though. If we take the power from the feds and give it to the states we will still have the same problems, it just means there would be a lot more polititions you have to influence

Try repealing the 17th admendment... which puts the power of the US Senate back into the State's legislatures.

 whembly wrote:
We'd be old geezer if it gets to that point.

Can they reverse Kelo while they're at it?

Meh, aren't they mostly in their 70-80? I might be 30 when we get enough change.

Try repealing the 17th admendment... which puts the power of the US Senate back into the State's legislatures.

Why? I don't see that helping at all. Besides, before we do something like that, we would have to deal with the rampant gerry-mandering in our states.

 whembly wrote:

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

Not necessarily. You would just need to pass legislation which differentiated natural persons from artificial ones. Doing so wouldn't change much, because artificial persons could easily pass money on to natural persons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Why? I don't see that helping at all. Besides, before we do something like that, we would have to deal with the rampant gerry-mandering in our states.

And repealing the 17th would almost certainly make gerrymandering worse.

Looks like Bernie is making a petition to the DNC to ask for more debates.
https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/debates?source=em150605c


The democratic primaries are looking really boring. I really wish some more people would run. Even if they loose, at least they are getting their name out there, and Hillary could still feth this up.

 whembly wrote:

Never gunna happen here buddy.

Yeah I have my doubts. But then there are decades where nothing happens and weeks where decades happen.

 whembly wrote:
"Ecological fall-out"... wut?

The damage that has already been done. Seeing what exactly the current degree of warming will change for global farming and habitable zones will likely not be entirely pleasant to deal with, even if we're 100% sure we've stopped things from getting increasingly worse.

 whembly wrote:

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

We need more transparency laws.

What you need is an end to legalised corruption, which from this outsider's view is exactly what your lobbying system is. The question is, can a system that is so rotten that corruption is legalised be fixed from within that same system?

Bran Dawri wrote:

 whembly wrote:

No... that isn't practical. You'd have to amend the Constitution...

We need more transparency laws.

What you need is an end to legalised corruption, which from this outsider's view is exactly what your lobbying system is. The question is, can a system that is so rotten that corruption is legalised be fixed from within that same system?

It can, but it requires the one thing that probably can't be fixed: intelligent and informed voters, and lots of them. More and more people are starting to wake up and realize this, but they don't even come close to matching the masses of people who still blindly just check all the R or D boxes on the ballots.

I know what would be cool: fully electronic and interactive voting systems, where you go to the voting place, and take a quick survey of your views on the various issues, and it tells you which candidates match those views so you can vote for the one that is the best match. Not only do you get a better informed vote, but now you also get all sorts of polling data about what people think about the issues, so the candidates will really know what the people want.

I was just thinking, if Pataki made it through the primaries, he could do quite well in the general. He has had lots of experience (12 years as governor), and is moderate enough to not alienate the undecided voters (he was governor of NY after all). Although (because they republican party is apparently composed of people who want nothing to do with the white house) him being relatively moderate will hurt him in the primaries. But I'd consider voting for him. He's not a slime-ball, and has a pretty good environmental record (something that is very important to me personally).

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I know what would be cool: fully electronic and interactive voting systems, where you go to the voting place, and take a quick survey of your views on the various issues, and it tells you which candidates match those views so you can vote for the one that is the best match. Not only do you get a better informed vote, but now you also get all sorts of polling data about what people think about the issues, so the candidates will really know what the people want.

First you'd need to guarantee that the machines wouldn't 'accidentally' register wrong input or give misleading results for the questionnaire. Then you'd have to come up with an actually useful questionnaire that doesn't just have a bunch of crappy predetermined answers or asks the wrong questions altogether. There's also the fundamental issue of there even being a match. I mean, there's no way that the presidential candidate that is the closest match for my ideology is an actual match, they're just Uranus instead of Neptune.

Then you'd still have the huge problem of voting for some reason always being on a work day so a lot of people can't make it. And so on.

Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...

 skyth wrote:
Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...

When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?

I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...

When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?

I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.

Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.

But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...

When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?

I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.

Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.

But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.

5pm? That's nuts!

You guys are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.

There would be riots in the UK if voting times were so restrictive. Hell, you can bring farm animals into a UK polling station, as long as they don't interfere with the democratic process.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 skyth wrote:
Voting on a Tuesday isn't a big thing. Employers are required to allow you time off and you already have to leave the house. Body in motion and all...

When do the polling stations open and close in American elections?

I ask, because in the UK, it's 7am til 10pm, which is enough time to vote, even if you have a job.

Typically, it's been my experience that US polling stations maintain banking hours (so closed by 5pm) however, we do have mail in ballots. Here in Washington where I live, you can fill out your ballot that comes in the mail, then drop it in a drop box in lieu of a polling station.

But I have honestly not heard Employers are required to give people time off... I would assume that like so much here, if that is true, it's considered unpaid time off, and so many people, especially the minimum wage/multiple job types simply cannot "afford" that time off. Hence why certain politicians, particularly on the left want to make voting a national holiday.

5pm? That's nuts!

You guys are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world.

There would be riots in the UK if voting times were so restrictive. Hell, you can bring farm animals into a UK polling station, as long as they don't interfere with the democratic process.

It actually differs by state.

Each state sets up it's own polling hours, when/if there's early voting, when/if absentee, what kind of ID (if any) when casting votes...etc.

It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

 skyth wrote:
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO

As for state elections, that should be up to the individual state, but national elections are different.

I don't know how counting and manning the stations works in the USA, but in the UK, we have an army of volunteers, and the results are often declared only a few hours after the polls close.

If we can do it, so could the USA.

 skyth wrote:
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

You would be guessing wrong. I live in a very conservative county in GA and the polls are open to 1900/7PM.

Frankly, folks want to vote, they ned to get their asses to the polling place. Extended hours don't fix apathy.

 CptJake wrote:
Extended hours don't fix apathy.

But they do fix things like not being able to miss work to vote if you aren't in an area as lucky as yours...

 motyak wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Extended hours don't fix apathy.

But they do fix things like not being able to miss work to vote if you aren't in an area as lucky as yours...

So either vote before or after work. Believe its a 0700 open stations

 CptJake wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

You would be guessing wrong. I live in a very conservative county in GA and the polls are open to 1900/7PM.

Frankly, folks want to vote, they ned to get their asses to the polling place. Extended hours don't fix apathy.

Texas has regular voting but also has a full week (or maybe two) of early voting, PLUS absentee voting.

In more news: Clintons gave NYT charity $100,000 same year the NYT endorsed her candidacy.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-donated-100k-to-new-york-times-group-the-same-year-paper-endorsed-her/

 skyth wrote:
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

That's not really true. There's no pattern like that.

New York votes only on one day AND you must show valid IDs.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

I haven't delved in deeper, but I suspect some states have laws similar to Jury Duty. IN that, your employer must accomodate you while on Jury Duty. That could be extended to voting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO

THere's your disconnect.

Our Federal government isn't supposed to be that powerful... it just appears that way because of how affluent this country is...

Think of each state in the US as separate countries. 'Tis why we have so much variability in state laws.

And technically, we don't directly vote our President. Our delegates does.

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
It's later here. I'm guessing the more conservative the place, the shorter rhe hours.

That's not really true. There's no pattern like that.

New York votes only on one day AND you must show valid IDs.

National holiday wouldn't help as there is no mandatory pay for holidays. What I would like to see is polling places open for a week before the election day.

I haven't delved in deeper, but I suspect some states have laws similar to Jury Duty. IN that, your employer must accomodate you while on Jury Duty. That could be extended to voting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Why isn't this a Federal issue? Surely, for Presidential/Senate/Congress elections, there should be one uniform voting time across the entire nation? That would be the fairest way IMO

THere's your disconnect.

Our Federal government isn't supposed to be that powerful... it just appears that way because of how affluent this country is...

Think of each state in the US as separate countries. 'Tis why we have so much variability in state laws.

And technically, we don't directly vote our President. Our delegates does.

Whembley, I was under the impression that the Federal government (or should I say General Grant) resolved the whole states rights issue in 1865

He had a deep bench. The firm of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan also had such eminent legal minds as Thomas, Hancock, and Buell.

 Frazzled wrote:
He had a deep bench. The firm of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan also had such eminent legal minds as Thomas, Hancock, and Buell.

Need I remind you that your home state went renegade, and rebelled against its glorious overlords in Washington, praise be to them.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
He had a deep bench. The firm of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan also had such eminent legal minds as Thomas, Hancock, and Buell.

Need I remind you that your home state went renegade, and rebelled against its glorious overlords in Washington, praise be to them.

Not only that, but I've been to the mass grave where one of my ancestors is buried who did so.