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.
Spinner wrote: So the argument is 'it's bad because Obama did it, nicknames nicknames nicknames'.
I love it.
Well... for 'Mr. I have a Pen & Phone' arguing for his ability to take executive action when Congress blocks his legislative goals...
His critics cried and howled over the executive overreach, but O's defender were cool with it.
Now that Cheeto Jesus has the same "Pen & Phone"... will you defend his prerogative just like Obama was defended?
Absolutely not. Because Cheetoh Jesus doesn't have an obstructionist legislative branch that since day one has declared their intention to block anything and everything he would attempt to do.
But you knew that already, didn't you? Or are you still having selective memory about the past 8 years?
You mean six yearswhen Obama/Democrats got curb stomped in 2010 because of the gak they've pulled from 2008-10.
I mean eight years. McConnell stated in 2008 before Obama even entered office that the Republicans were going to block anything and everything the Democrats attempted to put through.
You and I both know you know this. Stop playing know-nothing. It's disingenuous garbage.
And. He. Didn't. Stop. gak.
You stop being disingenous and stop trying to re-write history. The Democrats held BOTH the house and senate between 2008-10.
Just because the Turtle was useless doesn't mean they didn't attempt to stop crap.
:rolls eyes:
Jeez... a political critter that doesn't roll over before your hero is... what... I dunno... literally hitler or something?
Who said anything about anyone being a hero? There's no business for an obstructionist twit in public office. Yet somehow he keeps getting back in, mostly because of the deluded political base that plays for the Republicans.
Obstructionism has ALWAYS, ALWAYS been a useful crudgel in the minority party's toolbox.
The sooner you accept that, the soon you start cheering for the Democrats to Obstruct Republicans and Cheeto Jesus.
Obstructionism, ideally, has always been a tool that is used as a last resort. Not "because we can".
For christ's sake, we have a guy still in office who claims this:
"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'
So yes. Stop trying to be disingenuous about the reality of the political climate and the dumpster fire that is your chosen party.
God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?
Oh right, the constituency that believed Obama was a Muslim from Kenya and that universal healthcare meant death panels.
Amirite?
Sure Kan...
Republicans are rednecked, fly-over, lowbrowed, know-nothings voters.
#ReasonsWhyTrumpWonIsThisRightHere.
If that's what you believe I posted, sure.
I'm not one of the people who voted for a man who promised to "Drain the swamp!", yet is even now filling it with exactly those same individuals. I'm not one of the people who voted for a man on the basis of "Lock her up!" or the fact that "Women get hormonal and might start wars!" or that "He's a great businessman!"(never mind those bankruptcies and failed businesses...).
Regarding my opinion of Republican voters who voted for Trump? I'll totally say this:
I find them to be people who, for whatever reason, have convinced themselves that they were the victims of the past 8 years. That they were personally marginalized when others were given the same rights or protections that they already possessed.
And because of that? They chose to vote for a party that is staunchly opposed to those things, regardless of the dumpster fire of a candidate that was put forward.
It's 270 elector votes needed to win the precidency. In theory, what would happen if enough faithless electors abandoned Trump, putting him below 270 (though still more than HRC)? I assume it's actually 270 votes needed. Not just having the most.
So far it is not 'as well', it is ONLY Democratic. And Trump already has enough that with TX he is over 270. (265 as I type this)
I was aware of a few Republicans from other states already announcing they'd be faithless but I haven't heard that of any Democrats. That's what I meant with Democrats as well.
They can announce what ever they want. So far NO R EC members have gone for anyone other than Trump, with TX, CA, NV, HI and DC being the last results we're waiting for. Of those, only TX will vote for Trump. We'll see if he gets that 1 faithless elector or not.
In 'good news' for Clinton, she broke the glass ceiling on most faithless electors in the last 100 years as far as I can tell.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/19 21:53:08
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
If NO ONE gets to 270. Then the top 3 candidates are chosen by the House of Representative.
However, Cheeto Jesus will get his 270 easily...
Ah, thanks W.
Yea, it's a rather theoretical musing at this point. I can't imagine 37+ Republican electors being faithless. It would have been really interesting if Florida had gone to HRC though. 8 defectors I could see...
Or say, Pennsylvania and Michigan goes the other way (which is a margin of less than 100K voters). That would be one faithless elector needed to wrest the presidency away from Trump.
What happen after 3 candidates are chosen by the House of Representative?
It's 270 elector votes needed to win the precidency. In theory, what would happen if enough faithless electors abandoned Trump, putting him below 270 (though still more than HRC)? I assume it's actually 270 votes needed. Not just having the most.
So far it is not 'as well', it is ONLY Democratic. And Trump already has enough that with TX he is over 270. (265 as I type this)
I was aware of a few Republicans from other states already announcing they'd be faithless but I haven't heard that of any Democrats. That's what I meant with Democrats as well.
They can announce what ever they want. So far NO R EC members have gone for anyone other than Trump, with TX, CA, NV, HI and DC being the last results we're waiting for. Of those, only TX will vote for Trump. We'll see if he gets that 1 faithless elector or not.
I thought the elector's voting was just about to begin. Now you're telling me it's just about over already.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/19 21:56:43
If NO ONE gets to 270. Then the top 3 candidates are chosen by the House of Representative.
However, Cheeto Jesus will get his 270 easily...
Ah, thanks W.
Yea, it's a rather theoretical musing at this point. I can't imagine 37+ Republican electors being faithless. It would have been really interesting if Florida had gone to HRC though. 8 defectors I could see...
Or say, Pennsylvania and Michigan goes the other way (which is a margin of less than 100K voters). That would be one faithless elector needed to wrest the presidency away from Trump.
What happen after 3 candidates are chosen by the House of Representative?
Clarifying here: I meant, that if neither candidates reaches the 270 EV, then the US House of Representatives "picks" who'll be President from the top 3 candidates.
It's 270 elector votes needed to win the precidency. In theory, what would happen if enough faithless electors abandoned Trump, putting him below 270 (though still more than HRC)? I assume it's actually 270 votes needed. Not just having the most.
So far it is not 'as well', it is ONLY Democratic. And Trump already has enough that with TX he is over 270. (265 as I type this)
I was aware of a few Republicans from other states already announcing they'd be faithless but I haven't heard that of any Democrats. That's what I meant with Democrats as well.
They can announce what ever they want. So far NO R EC members have gone for anyone other than Trump, with TX, CA, NV, HI and DC being the last results we're waiting for. Of those, only TX will vote for Trump. We'll see if he gets that 1 faithless elector or not.
I thought the elector's voting was just about to begin. Now you're telling me it's just about over already.
Yeah... TX has voted. Trump will be the 45th President.
Spinner wrote: So the argument is 'it's bad because Obama did it, nicknames nicknames nicknames'.
I love it.
Well... for 'Mr. I have a Pen & Phone' arguing for his ability to take executive action when Congress blocks his legislative goals...
His critics cried and howled over the executive overreach, but O's defender were cool with it.
Now that Cheeto Jesus has the same "Pen & Phone"... will you defend his prerogative just like Obama was defended?
Absolutely not. Because Cheetoh Jesus doesn't have an obstructionist legislative branch that since day one has declared their intention to block anything and everything he would attempt to do.
But you knew that already, didn't you? Or are you still having selective memory about the past 8 years?
You mean six yearswhen Obama/Democrats got curb stomped in 2010 because of the gak they've pulled from 2008-10.
I mean eight years. McConnell stated in 2008 before Obama even entered office that the Republicans were going to block anything and everything the Democrats attempted to put through.
You and I both know you know this. Stop playing know-nothing. It's disingenuous garbage.
And. He. Didn't. Stop. gak.
You stop being disingenous and stop trying to re-write history. The Democrats held BOTH the house and senate between 2008-10.
Just because the Turtle was useless doesn't mean they didn't attempt to stop crap.
:rolls eyes:
Jeez... a political critter that doesn't roll over before your hero is... what... I dunno... literally hitler or something?
Who said anything about anyone being a hero? There's no business for an obstructionist twit in public office. Yet somehow he keeps getting back in, mostly because of the deluded political base that plays for the Republicans.
Obstructionism has ALWAYS, ALWAYS been a useful crudgel in the minority party's toolbox.
The sooner you accept that, the soon you start cheering for the Democrats to Obstruct Republicans and Cheeto Jesus.
Obstructionism, ideally, has always been a tool that is used as a last resort. Not "because we can".
Well... if you believe that, then you must be pretty pissed with the Democrats where in the minority party... eh?
For christ's sake, we have a guy still in office who claims this:
"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'
So yes. Stop trying to be disingenuous about the reality of the political climate and the dumpster fire that is your chosen party.
God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?
Oh right, the constituency that believed Obama was a Muslim from Kenya and that universal healthcare meant death panels.
Amirite?
Sure Kan...
Republicans are rednecked, fly-over, lowbrowed, know-nothings voters.
#ReasonsWhyTrumpWonIsThisRightHere.
If that's what you believe I posted, sure.
I'm not one of the people who voted for a man who promised to "Drain the swamp!", yet is even now filling it with exactly those same individuals. I'm not one of the people who voted for a man on the basis of "Lock her up!" or the fact that "Women get hormonal and might start wars!" or that "He's a great businessman!"(never mind those bankruptcies and failed businesses...).
Regarding my opinion of Republican voters who voted for Trump? I'll totally say this:
I find them to be people who, for whatever reason, have convinced themselves that they were the victims of the past 8 years. That they were personally marginalized when others were given the same rights or protections that they already possessed.
And because of that? They chose to vote for a party that is staunchly opposed to those things, regardless of the dumpster fire of a candidate that was put forward.
Wow.
I can't even...
All I can say, is that if the Democrat Political Critters™ believe as you do... they'll only make it harder on themselves in attaining majority status in the future.
Better hope Cheeto Jesus really feths up majoryly. (albeit, very possible ).
I would like to imagine that, if I were a voter in America (thank flip I'm not), I would probably be annoyed with, say, a Democrat senate doing obstructionist shenanigans, as I would be with a Republican senate.
However, here's the thing. There's a fair chance, a more than fair chance I'd say, that the next 4 years could very well result in some truly awful, terrible and, quite frankly, as someone outside America, downright horrifying policies coming out of the Oval Office.
And I don't mean blah, blah, blah, X percentage tax cuts, something something education that we'll change our minds on in a couple of years anyways, blah blah. I'm meaning fundamental life or death things. Love or hate Obamacare, disagree with the specifics, when people I know say, "I won't be alive today without it" I tend to believe them.
In these sorts of situations, if I were American, I would very much be praying for a democratic senate to be as damned obstructionist as humanly possible.
Just Tony wrote: Any of those operations are monitored by an operator, and checked on a regular basis.
Note the key point: monitored by an operator. Instead of having a person (or even a team of people) doing the work and a person supervising you have a machine doing it while a person supervises a group of machines. Even though you haven't 100% automated the factory that's still a significant cut in the number of jobs, and those jobs aren't coming back. The new reality is that you're going to have a small number of skilled workers to supervise the machines, and a small number of engineers to design the products and the machines to make them. The unskilled labor is irreversibly declining and will eventually reach zero.
Funny, I'd say at least 65-80% of our robot jobs did NOT replace a person, simply made that person's job easier. When I ran the machine that manufactured the bearing caps for the engine, there was a robot that took the caps and loaded them onto a tray to go to installation, where a robot was there to install them to the block. The same robot didn't install the bolts, those had to be put in by an operator. The robot torqued them, but it took an entire replacement fixture on the end of the robot to do so. THAT person was the only one working that cell when the caps had to be loaded and torqued by hand as well. My machine was also hand load back in the day. Tubs for international shipment are also loaded in a way that the robot CANNOT do without damaging the product. MUST be done by a human, the same human that must be there for that machine to operate. I realize there are instances where a robot will replace the person completely, but it's not absolute in any way, shape, or form.
Picturing that, for every robot that has to install a panel/manifold/turbo/whatever (IF you were to automate that part of the process), you'd have to have either a robot to load the parts in a tray for that robot, or a human to do so.
Or you redesign the factory so that one machine leads directly into the next. Obviously if you're talking about a factory from the 1950s that is still in operation there will be limits to how much you can automate it, but what happens when someone builds a new factory with modern technology? That inefficiency in design no longer exists, and you can remove even more jobs.
Line flow is line flow regardless of who does the work. An actual production line is pretty modular by nature, allowing for different versions of products or sometimes even completely different products to be produced. In instances like that, you would have to have a system set up that keys the robot to switch job patterns to accommodate, but it is pretty much plug and play. The issue is that the person who was standing there doing X job will now move up to a different job while one of the other workers gets the enviable task of making sure the right bar code/whatever that keys the robot is there and in the right place, OR they get to manually switch the robot. So I don't see that being a thing unless it's an ergonomically difficult job or there is such debris/cast off to make it patently less safe than other jobs.
Also, how well are they doing with driverless vehicles? Number of failures so far? Not even talking crashes, just failures. Picture a failure in a populated area.
This is not really a good way to look at it. The question is not whether driverless vehicles are 100% perfect, it's whether they're better than human drivers. And human drivers crash, make mistakes, drive drunk and kill people, etc. Driverless vehicles can have a significant failure rate and still be so much better than the alternative that there is no longer any justification for allowing humans to drive.
Here's the difference: a robot at our plant started dropping connecting rods too early, so in the midst of travel. Because the problem occurred within the programming and execution of programming, the robot didn't stop dropping rods until the operator of that section of the line shut it down after being alerted by the sound of metal on metal where none exists. If a robot screws up, it doesn't go "Oh, gak! Better stop screwing up and tell the supervisor there was an issue", it goes "10111010010010100010100101001001" and continues to happily screw up. I can't see where a malfunctioning driverless car wouldn't be the same. OR you wind up with a random person sitting in the car to make sure the robot car doesn't screw up or can fix it when it does, which sort of defeats the purpose of driverless cars. Unless you put all cars on rails, which I like the idea of, but causes several MORE problems in the process.
And for all you well-versed energy followers on here: is hydroelectric as efficient as solar?
Efficiency isn't really the answer you're looking for, since they aren't trying to turn the same resource into electricity. In terms of effectiveness in solving our energy needs hydroelectric is amazing. It's clean, priced within plausible limits, capable of large-scale production, and will run at 100% capacity forever once the dam is constructed. Where solar has issues with consistency (and therefore requires you to build some other kind of energy source to cover the low periods) hydroelectric is straightforward: build a dam, consider that region's energy needs dealt with.
The problem with hydroelectric is that there are a limited number of potential dam sites available and transmission line losses (true of electricity in general) make it inefficient to supply energy to areas far from the dam site. So, while it's very good where it is possible, hydroelectric can only provide power for some regions of the country.
The problem is dam locations? Here's a quick solution: simple water wheel turbines on fast flowing tributaries like rivers. Just a few of these along the Mississippi River could provide clean, cheap power to areas around the river. Granted that doesn't help every OTHER tributary in the nation, but it does tons to move away from fossil fuel reliability for electricity. Most people are looking for some magic bullet that will solve the fossil fuel crisis and be the sole renewable source of energy, but I think there should be interlocking green resources. THAT is the only way it could work to topple fossil fuels. Have nuke plants in the flatter, less earthquake prone dust bowl states, hydroelectric in areas that have the tributaries to make it feasible, and supplement with wind farms and solar panels. That's about the best you can do without some sort of perpetual motion dynamo, and we're so far away from that it isn't even a consideration.
As someone who does LEAN and 6Sigma for a living, you don't even need automation to replace workers. You just need process improvement so you no longer need a worker or a robot.
I hate to tell you this, but as you reduce waste and become more efficient you need fewer people to do the work. That is where most of the "efficiency" gains come from, but we just hide it with technical terminology.
Oh, you don't have to tell me about Lean, I've already felt its bite. Luckily we've been leaned as much as possible here. BUT the fact remains that the argument was that robots would take all the jobs, replacing humans except for the bare minimum. My argument was seeing that as not the case. If any company could get away with completely automating, it would. Can anybody name a single facility that is automated? A complete company? A complete industry? I mean, if the microchip industry is done completely by robots, I'll give you that, but I can tell you right now the Subaru plant down the road from me still has MANY more bodies than bots. I think the estimation of the roboticization of the industrial world is far far far off, if even possible.
Unless, of course, someone has already constructed R. Daneel Olivaw...
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Just my own viewpoint mind, but I think there are 2 things that can help out in the future:
1) A basic income for everybody, and people use their spare time doing volunteer work, cultural productions, vegetable growing etc etc I think that could work
Again though, we don't know if permanent underemployment is happening. All the signs were there in the 1930s that it was happening, but then people started being drawn in to new employment through the sudden and dramatic increase in living standards.
So we may find something similar happens again. If solar and battery tech gets to the point where the price of energy drops massively, then this is actually pretty likely.
If it doesn't happen, well there's lots of solutions. Basic incomes might happen, though having them slowly come in would be a real challenge, it needs a massive cultural shift. It might take a generation of a permanent, never employed underclass for the solution to be put in place.
But there's also lots of other smaller measures, such as reduced working hours and earlier retirement.
2) Space exploration and colonization. If we get the tech, then there's a whole galaxy out there for growth and people to settle on Mars or Planet X or whatever. As a bonus, when we encounter the Klingons, our defence industry will get a boost, thus creating new jobs
But year, colonizing Mars or the Moon could be a potential growth area.
I'm certainly no scientist, but this seems a very big pipedream to me. Afterall, there's still a whole lot of planet we have here that untouched. And while that's because those parts of Earth are pretty hostile, all those parts, whether it's the Sahara or the tip of Everest, they are all more supportive of life than Mars or the Moon.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Just Tony wrote: BUT the fact remains that the argument was that robots would take all the jobs, replacing humans except for the bare minimum.
The argument is that eventually this will happen, not that the goal has been accomplished already. And I don't see why this is a controversial claim. Robots are only going to get cheaper and better at their jobs, while human labor is never going to improve from where we are now. The only question is how quickly jobs will be lost to automation, not what the end result is going to be.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Just Tony wrote: BUT the fact remains that the argument was that robots would take all the jobs, replacing humans except for the bare minimum.
The argument is that eventually this will happen, not that the goal has been accomplished already. And I don't see why this is a controversial claim. Robots are only going to get cheaper and better at their jobs, while human labor is never going to improve from where we are now. The only question is how quickly jobs will be lost to automation, not what the end result is going to be.
My argument is that it won't get to the point, unless we're building androids, and by that time, we'll have tons of other jobs for humans to do. I envision Star Trek: The Next Generation, you seem to envision Wall-E. I think mine is more realistic. Just like 3D printing is going to totally crush the injection molding industry, which I also think is false.
Breotan wrote: Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Sorry, but no. The entire point of the electoral college is that its creators didn't trust a straight popular vote, and created a system where the elites of society get to meet and choose the next president with the will of the people as nothing more than one of many factors they might consider. In fact, the popular vote didn't even exist. The only thing making it even somewhat democratic is the fact that, within a few years after the electoral college was created, everyone essentially agreed to ignore the original intent and have the electors vote according to the popular vote.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: My argument is that it won't get to the point, unless we're building androids, and by that time, we'll have tons of other jobs for humans to do.
Again, you're making all or nothing assumptions. Replacing 10% of manufacturing jobs with robots is a devastating loss, and doesn't require building scifi androids. We may never reach the point of 100% automation, where a single engineer designs a product and tells the automated factory to build it, but we are almost certainly going to continue the trend of improving technology eliminating jobs. And the jobs that remain are going to be skilled labor: engineers, robot programmers, experienced supervisors, etc. The people this is going to hurt most are the ones with few qualifications, who already struggle to find anything that pays more than poverty level wages.
Just like 3D printing is going to totally crush the injection molding industry, which I also think is false.
The two have nothing to do with each other. 3d printing is overhyped by people who don't understand 3d printing, automation is something predicted by the experts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 03:07:36
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.
Just Tony wrote: BUT the fact remains that the argument was that robots would take all the jobs, replacing humans except for the bare minimum.
The argument is that eventually this will happen, not that the goal has been accomplished already. And I don't see why this is a controversial claim. Robots are only going to get cheaper and better at their jobs, while human labor is never going to improve from where we are now. The only question is how quickly jobs will be lost to automation, not what the end result is going to be.
My argument is that it won't get to the point, unless we're building androids, and by that time, we'll have tons of other jobs for humans to do. I envision Star Trek: The Next Generation, you seem to envision Wall-E. I think mine is more realistic. Just like 3D printing is going to totally crush the injection molding industry, which I also think is false.
It's worth noting that TNG's androids were eventually given rights as equal citizens. Later on sentient holograms also were granted the rights of citizenship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 03:34:26
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.
Holding us back for centuries? You cannot possibly be serious. Remind me, which country's flag is on the moon?
It appears that President Obama is making history again. He's commuted more sentences than the previous eleven Presidents combined. I don't have details on what types of criminals have had their sentences reduced/pardoned.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/20 04:04:17
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.
Holding us back for centuries? You cannot possibly be serious. Remind me, which country's flag is on the moon?
It appears that President Obama is making history again. He's commuted more sentences than the previous eleven Presidents combined. I don't have details on what types of criminals have had their sentences reduced/pardoned.
Yeah and that flag was planted by a federal agency not alabama
What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
You have two systems in place designed to stop the democratic election of your President in favor of shifting it to a secondary election by smaller and smaller numbers of people.
This has been explained multiple times in this thread. Yes, we do not have a "democratic election of our President" in general. We have 50 separate STATE elections plus one in Washington, D.C., each one completely democratic, to assign Electors to the Electoral College. From there, the Electors vote in one general election. This is also completely democratic. The next step is a tiebreaker only. If the EC can't reach a majority for one candidate (270 votes), the House votes for the President and the Senate votes for the Vice President.
Your view that our system is "designed to stop the democratic election of your President" shows that you either don't understand it or don't like it. Okay, but that doesn't mean a tiered system is less democratic than a straight popular vote, it just makes it different.
Personally I find your country's obsession with "State's Rights" to be a bizarre and antiquated notion that's been holding your country back for centuries.
Holding us back for centuries? You cannot possibly be serious. Remind me, which country's flag is on the moon?
You're serious?
The Moon Landing is your ultimate justification for any absurd political system you care to come up with?
whembly wrote: God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?
And here it is. The absolute gold standard in my guy vs you guy.
Because when Obama pushes the limits of executive action, it's a dangerous threat to democracy. When a Republican congress pushes the limits on presidential appointments, then they're just doing what their supporters want.
Uurgh.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?
And here it is. The absolute gold standard in my guy vs you guy.
Because when Obama pushes the limits of executive action, it's a dangerous threat to democracy. When a Republican congress pushes the limits on presidential appointments, then they're just doing what their supporters want.
Uurgh.
And then, you'll rah-rah cheer the Democrat Senators in obstructing as much as they can while you pooh-pooh Drumpf when he reverses many of Obama's EO.
whembly wrote: Obstructionism has ALWAYS, ALWAYS been a useful crudgel in the minority party's toolbox.
The sooner you accept that, the sooner you start cheering for the Democrats to Obstruct Republicans and Cheeto Jesus.
Of course obstructionism is a valuable tool for the minority party. Thing is, a gun is a useful tool for a policeman, what matters is knowing when and how often you need to use it.
Republicans have spent their time in opposition, under Obama and under much of the Clinton administration with their guns drawn and the safety off, firing at anything and everything that moved.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: God forbid that he listens to his constituency... I mean... nooooooo... feth his supporters. amirite?
And here it is. The absolute gold standard in my guy vs you guy.
Because when Obama pushes the limits of executive action, it's a dangerous threat to democracy. When a Republican congress pushes the limits on presidential appointments, then they're just doing what their supporters want.
Uurgh.
And then, you'll rah-rah cheer the Democrat Senators in obstructing as much as they can while you pooh-pooh Drumpf when he reverses many of Obama's EO.
amirite?
I can only speak for myself here, but it'd be nice if the Americans could stop viewing their opposing political party as the enemy and simply create a functioning government instead of an eternal pissing contest where each side does their best to obstruct and undermine the other while the country suffers for it.
Breotan wrote: What are you talking about? We love democracy. All these rules are put in place to prevent abuses, not to prevent democracy.
That's some word salad. The only 'abuse' that can be prevented is a democratically elected candidate who the electors deemed unacceptable for office, which is another way of saying that they are overriding the democratically determined popular will, ie prevent the democratic choice from winning.
The more I read Americans talk about their system, the more I suspect the big stumbling block to all of this is that many Americans were taught an almost deified version of their founding fathers and the systems they put in place. They start with an assumption that each part of the system is great, and then they start making up how.
Thing is, ultimately the creators of the US system had no other democracies to build their own. They were making it up as they went along. They did a great job (compare and contrast with France's effort at around the same time), but just because they were ahead of their time, it doesn't mean they are ahead of our time. We now have a couple of centuries of experience with many different models of democracy, we know things the founding fathers didn't know.
In almost all cases it is much too hard to change the bugs and quirks of the US system, but that is very different from pretending those bugs aren't there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: And then, you'll rah-rah cheer the Democrat Senators in obstructing as much as they can while you pooh-pooh Drumpf when he reverses many of Obama's EO.
amirite?
If Democrats block a Trump/Republican bill that I think is a bad idea, that'll be fine.
If Democrats form a strategy to block absolutely everything from day 1 under the scheme first developed by Gingrich and then expanded under Boehner, then that would be terrible. If Democrats block a debt ceiling approval in order to force concessions, that will be terrible. If Democrats straight up refuse to allow hearings on any Trump appointed Supreme Court justice, that will be terrible.
Do you see the difference?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/20 04:53:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: Obstructionism has ALWAYS, ALWAYS been a useful crudgel in the minority party's toolbox.
The sooner you accept that, the sooner you start cheering for the Democrats to Obstruct Republicans and Cheeto Jesus.
Of course obstructionism is a valuable tool for the minority party. Thing is, a gun is a useful tool for a policeman, what matters is knowing when and how often you need to use it.
Republicans have spent their time in opposition, under Obama and under much of the Clinton administration with their guns drawn and the safety off, firing at anything and everything that moved.
And when Democrats are in power, they're all angels...
).
