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.
2016/02/27 18:48:53
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Well, it does have something to do with the fact that the DNC has a super-delegate system to "keep things fair" and "protect against grassroots movements"
2016/02/27 19:09:27
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
In fairness when your party's delegates refuse to back you it may be a fair point.
Also the Democrat nomination is a two horse race, the Republican nomination has 3+ candidates so the percentages will not be an apples to apples comparison
On vacation for a few days and just getting caught up
It's almost like you don't want to believe what he actually said. In case you missed it;
(source: Associated Press)
“the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
If you want to believe the article and claim that he was "bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process" then that is your right, but he was clear and unequivocal in what he said. What he did say, and this is where people mistakenly believe that he did not mean what he said, was that if the President works with the Senate (or nominates a favorable candidate) then it would be passed. Essentially holding the selection process hostage to nominating a candidate favourable to the opposition party, or instead of using his Constitutional powers to nominate someone instead changing the rules to negotiate. Refusing to schedule confirmation hearings is still very much on the table based on Biden's statement.
In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today.
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
On vacation for a few days and just getting caught up
It's almost like you don't want to believe what he actually said. In case you missed it;
(source: Associated Press)
“the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.”
If you want to believe the article and claim that he was bemoaning "bemoaning the politicization of the confirmation process" then that is your right, but he was clear and unequivocal in what he said. What he did say, and this is where people mistakenly believe that he did not mean what he said, was that if the President works with the Senate (or nominates a favorable candidate) then it would be passed. Essentially holding the selection process hostage to nominating a candidate favourable to the opposition party, or instead of using his Constitutional powers to nominate someone instead changing the rules to negotiate. Refusing to schedule confirmation hearings is still very much on the table based on Biden's statement.
No, you ignore the context.
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
I do not, it's just that I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and don't remember it being addressed in this thread (it have been, but I missed it).
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 19:39:35
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be fair, this is probably a good thing. Otherwise you end up with Donald Trump and the Tea Party before him tearing your party apart, and that's just not good electoral politics
You also ignore that our POTUS is on record wanting to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination
I do not, it's just that I have absolutely no knowledge on the subject, and don't remember it being addressed in this thread (it have been, but I missed it).
Your point was already addressed in my prior post.
**edit to clarify my position**
The context that you have posted actually bolsters my position, rather than undermines it. To whit;
"In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today. "
The threat is still very much there to punt a SC nomination until the next POTUS is in office
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 19:45:22
2016/02/27 19:42:47
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
To be fair, this is probably a good thing. Otherwise you end up with Donald Trump and the Tea Party before him tearing your party apart, and that's just not good electoral politics
Not good for the two party system that runs out country...which our founding fathers warned against and feared.
I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
Three!! Three successful trades! Ah ah ah!
2016/02/27 19:45:13
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Alright, can you not see the difference between "if you work with us, we will vote your candidate, who we both agree on, in." and "We will not vote, nor even hold hearings, on any candidate", than you re obviously too far into this for anything I say to make a difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 19:45:32
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 19:46:53
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: He also appointed someone to the Supreme Court during his final year.
Did he threaten to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination?
Did his VP say that no SC replacement should be named in an election year?
You should at least have the courtesy to read the thread if you are going to repeat the same stupid crap that has already been addressed on multiple pages.
But I understand that wouldn't be your style, so just continue to swoop-and-poop in threads as your heart desires.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 19:48:30
2016/02/27 19:47:39
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Alright, can you not see the difference between "if you work with us, we will vote your candidate, who we both agree on, in." and "We will not vote, nor even hold hearings, on any candidate", than you re obviously too far into this for anything I say to make a difference.
You may continue to tilt at windmills until such times as you decide to read what I actually wrote. In no less than two posts I said;
"In simple terms Biden's speech is;
1) The President has the right to nominate a SC judge without consulting the Senate
2) There should be no nominations to the SC in an election year
3) If there are we will not schedule hearings
4) However if the POTUS wants to; a) consult the Senate and essentially negotiate a nomination with us, or b) Nominate someone that we want, then we won't object.
In short give us what is in our interests and it is smooth sailing, don't give us what we want and the next POTUS gets to decide - the same scenario that we find ourselves in today. "
d-usa wrote: He also appointed someone to the Supreme Court during his final year.
Did he threaten to filibuster his predecessor's SC nomination?
Did his VP say that no SC replacement should be named in an election year?
You should at least have the courtesy to read the thread if you are going to repeat the same stupid crap that has already been addressed on multiple pages.
But I understand that wouldn't be your style, so just continue to swoop-and-poop in threads as your heart desires.
If you are going to accuse someone of not having the courtesy of reading a thread it would behoove you to not engage in the conduct that you are accusing others of.
Good talking with you
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 19:50:19
2016/02/27 19:51:15
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Some of them warned against and feared it. The rest then proceeded to build it (thanks Hamilton and Madison, you're little splat blew up and now look where we are)
Electoral systems that filter the influence of grassroots movement isn't why we have a two party system. We have a two party system because every time an third has a chance to get going, the main two co-opt its political positions into their own. It's why American Politics, while right of the most of the rest of the world, have tended to result in fairly centrist government policy. The American Political parties being so similar on so many things that really matter is part of why we have such a sensationalist mass media (that I understand you aren't fond of ). That sensationalism is practically needed for the parties to differentiate themselves from one another ideologically, as the reality is they have a lot in common.
If a grass roots movement has become significant enough that it has a real effect on an election, you can bet that the Dems or the Pubs will co-opt it. The Democratic Party's primary structure largely benefits us by allowing the party to filter and ignore fringe politics, such as those that have currently begun to tear the Republican party apart, which is where you find the majority of grassroots movement. Grassroots does not automatically = good (Hitler #godwin). It also very rarely translates into coherent national policy, as by definition grassroots movement start at the local level and it's hard to coalesce local interests into a national movement. Most grassroots don't last long because by they're very nature they are doomed to collapse after a few years. Why would any party want to risk hitching it's band wagon to public sentiments that won't translate into real votes come election season? Which isn't to say the system is flawless. That rule was instituted by the Dems back when they were super racist and were afraid that they'd be infiltrated by do gooders who wanted to end Jim Crow.
So a little good and a little bad
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/27 19:56:56
Our electioneering system doesn't help. The FPTP system means that we will always, eventually, end up with two parties. And rampant gerrymandering further enforces the parties' control.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 20:00:47
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
Exactly. In fact, the bigger crime here is that someone(s) must have been willfully stripping away the classification markings before sending it on, or, worse, that such material was never getting marked in the first place. The executive order requires a classification authority to review the material, determine the classification level(s) for the contents, AND determine the conditions under which the material will be declassified. Yes, there are things that should and must be classified, but until the classifying authority has done their job on it, other people can't necessarily be held accountable for not knowing what is and isn't classified. Now, while HRC can't be expected to recognize that every bit of unmarked classified material she received was supposed to be classified, she should have been able to recognize such material that fell directly within her area of responsibility (and that is one things she can and should get hit for).
You know, given recent events, this may never have been an issue if Hillary had just used an iPhone.
Tanner... that presumes that HRC and her staff doesn't know how to handle classified information.
So which is it? They were too ignorant of this and thus didn't know what they were doing? (even though 'ignorance of the law isn't a defense')
Or...
They knew exactly what they were doing, and did this to keep control unwanted review of their communications.
Neither doesn't bode well for the Clintons.
Like I've said before, too many people, including yourself, are laser-focused on Hillary alone in all of this. The problem is much, much wider in scope, and her's may very well be the least part in it. Someone was sending her the stuff. Someone was removing the classification markings. Or someone wasn't classifying it properly in the first place. Those are the names you should be clamoring for, and it isn't necessarily "her staff" alone, either.
You keep claiming the classification markings (and lack thereof) are a "red herring" when they are, in fact, a very real problem themselves, and a symptom of the larger issue of the general mishandling of classified information at the highest levels in our government (something which, I am sure, is more widespread than you probably want to know).
edit: spoilered the quote pyramid for size.
I am yammering for everyone involved. But this ordeal is MUCH bigger. We're about to hand over the god-damned military to someone who doesn't give a gak about America's security... only that *she's* taken precedent. In other words... in her mind, it isn't "The United States of America"... it's "The United States of Clintonland".
The big baddies *is* HRC. It's *her* server.
As far as I'm concerned, the mere existence of this server *is* the smoking gun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 20:15:08
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/27 20:15:42
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating an instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 20:26:09
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 20:21:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 20:22:38
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/27 20:36:05
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
And for the second point, that's what instant runoff does. In an instant runoff system, there can be no winner without over 50% of the vote. How instant runoff works is that instead of voting on one candidate, you number the ones you would like to see elected (i.e 1 for your first choice, 2 for your second, ect). After the "1" votes are tallied, if no candidate has more than 50%, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the next line of votes of the votes for that candidate (in this case the "2" votes), are counted instead, and applied to the votes of the remaining candidates. This continues, with the lowest vote candidate being eliminated each time until one candidate has a majority.
Spoiler:
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 20:37:33
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Is "factually incorrect" the current version of "truthiness"?
If people want to go the "yeah, what he said was different, but it means the same thing in my mind" route then that's fine I guess, just don't expect the rest of the folks to be too stupid to see through it.
2016/02/27 21:07:07
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: Is "factually incorrect" the current version of "truthiness"?
If people want to go the "yeah, what he said was different, but it means the same thing in my mind" route then that's fine I guess, just don't expect the rest of the folks to be too stupid to see through it.
So for all your fisking... you can't find something factually incorrect there.
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
Are we the United States of America?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/27 21:08:29
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/27 21:10:49
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
Are we the United States of America?
What?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 21:14:59
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
LordofHats wrote: Oh yes. I would really like it if the Electoral College was awarded by percentage rather than winner takes all. If wouldn't have much effect on the outcomes of most elections, but it would display a better and more immediately accessible picture of the electorate.
The removal of EC and instating and instant runoff system, would do a lot to ease our two party gridlock, by opening up other parties a viable.
That'll be a disaster.
Just lock down CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH (maybe a few more) and tell the smaller states to go feth themselves.
EC isn't the problem.
It's the fact that the barriers for a new party to go "mainstream" is extremely high. Tear those barriers down and we'd have something.
EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
Are we the United States of America?
What?
Let me emphasize something.
We are the United STATES of America.
The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.
Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?
Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2016/02/27 21:16:03
Subject: Re:The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
The EC was designed to prevent the larger states from having total control in Federal Governance.
Otherwise, why should a presidential candidate campaign in RI? VT? AK? MT? ND? SD?
Going to pure popular vote w/ runoff will be a disaster.
Because every vote still matters. It means that the D's still get votes from TX and the R's still get votes for CA.
It would actually do the exact opposite, as states candidates generally don't campaign in, because they are viewed as "safe", would still be important to all candidates.
In NY, Romney got 35% of the popular vote. If you got rid of EC, those 2.5M votes for him would still matter. But, because of the EC and how districts work, Obama got all the "votes" from the state, where as Romney got none.
As well as the important thing that, as long as it is possible for a president to win without winning the popular vote, the system is broken.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
2016/02/27 21:33:11
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
Co'tor Shas wrote: EC is a problem, a big problem. When a president can win without the majority of the votes, there is a problem. It also has a problem on unequal representation, in some small states, a vote can be worth more than in others.
A straight, popular vote gives states like California and New York tremendous influence over the election. Other regions of the country would such as the upper west would effectively be shut out of the process completely. The EC isn't perfect and isn't a system that I would have designed but it is better than the popular vote.
2016/02/27 21:35:54
Subject: The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition
d-usa wrote: I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember a scenario where you can with the electoral college with an insane percentage of the total votes.
d-usa wrote: I don't remember the exact numbers, but I remember a scenario where you can with the electoral college with an insane percentage of the total votes.
). That sensationalism is practically needed for the parties to differentiate themselves from one another ideologically, as the reality is they have a lot in common.
