They'd never recover...
- Thread starter davidallen
- Start date
I get that he said something that the WaPo took to be non interventionist. But who really thinks that is his actual belief and if it is that it is the result of a serious review of the state of the world and the USA's role in it rather than a shoot from the hip, gut feel response?
Not picking on you Gun, I just don't see consistency and conviction in the Don. I see a decent gut reaction to public sentiment, but not much else.
Donald Trump criticized the removal of Saddam as it happened. He said there was no reason to do it. I believe Trump has been very consistent down through years. Some claim he was not that outspoken against the war when it started, but I vividly remember hearing him criticize the war early on, early on enough to know he had personal misgivings about it. I remember his words pissing me off at the time because I was a supporter of it, and wrongly so.
Last edited:
I'd like to see some contemporaneous quotes by Trump criticizing the removal of Saddam Hussein.
This is true. Add in NAFTA. Add in I can't really think of a progressive economic policy she's pushed through and I don't have much response...
But then there's this. This paranoid, tantrum-throwing, investigate and badger and obstruct ethos reminds me that voting conservative just isn't an option. The drama and alarmism over the server is just more of the same old shitshow. Ditto with the birth certificate fiasco. Ditto with Benghazi -- all that obsession did was waste money and time, kind of like Whitewater and they finally got their hearing and....? They cry "WOLF!!" if a democrat burps. One thing for sure -- accusing, investigating and misusing authority to obtain power is wrong, and when an entire party does it and nothing else, voting for them isn't an option. There's a very real psychology that drives people to vote for hated candidates -- it's a poke in the eye of people they don't like. That's what's driving Trump voters. Likewise, the hate for the conservative bullshit makes it more likely for lots of people to vote for HRC, just so they can enjoy the teeth gnashing and horror of people like Headhunter that bring nothing but paranoia and anger. I can't help but feel sorry for any progressive that's in their cross hairs. It's a powerful dynamic and pushes both candidates. I could theoretically vote for a republican -- they just won't let me, though.
Conservatives haven't achieved one damned thing in 20 years except investigate and accuse.
I see that the conservative-led voting "reforms" that disproportionately depress black turnout are taking a judicial beating. Cue some conservative incredulously wondering why minorities don't vote republican. They're so clumsy and transparently shitty you just can't trust them in anything that counts.
Yes, quite the model of consistency. He was for the war at first. Skip to about 3:35
TL;DR version: I would like to see a parliamentary republic with proportional representation.
The system I'd like to see would move away from our current winner take all system and be replaced with proportional representation while also preserving our current geographical representation, for the most part. First, ballot access for congressional elections will have to be eased nationally and some states, like Oklahoma, may have to be forced to comply. Second, amendments would have to be produced. Third, our congress will select the President and Vice President and both will be accountable to congress.
So let's use Texas' 2014 U.S. House election results as our example. Texas has 36 congressional seats and two senators. In 2014 the popular vote split was Republican 60%, Democrat 33%, Libertarian 2%, Green Party 1%, and Independent 1% (Yes, I rounded up for the sake of this example). This would mean that the representation for the people of Texas within the U.S. House of Representin' would be 21 Republican seats, 11 Democratic seats, 2 Libertarian seats, 1 Green Party seat, and 1 Independent Party seat. Keep in mind that this is what it looks like in our current winner take all approach and an environment that discourages voting anything but Republican or Democrat. I firmly believe that a move toward a proportional system would drastically change how seats end up being allocated.
What would this look like nationally? Well, for the ease of producing an example let's use the current polling for President. Clinton 46%, Trump 41%, Johnson 6%, Stein, 2%, and 5% undecided (we'll call this Independent). This would result in a U.S. House consisting of 200 Democratic seats, 178 Republican seats, 26 Libertarian seats, and 9 Green Party seats, and 22 Independent party. Below is the diagram.
Now let's talk selection of senators. Originally, senators were to be selected by the states. This was their representation in our system. With the passing of the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) we moved closer to a true democracy with a national government and further from a federation of republics. This also made lobbying much easier and more affordable by centralizing those who must be lobbied. Under the original design lobbyist would also have to lobby the state legislature. This was by design because they knew that special interest would occur, so why not make it harder?
I propose that we go ahead and leave the 17th amendment in place and pass another amendment that outlines how candidates are presented to the people for election. Basically, each party within the state legislature would select two candidates to be presented to the people. So if you have four parties within your legislature you'd have eight candidates to vote for. Once elected these senators would be beholden to the state legislatures for which they represent. Each state would be required to outline it's own system for removal in the event that representation is not occurring.
I believe that with a proportional system for U.S. House being implemented you'd start to see this same representation within the state legislatures. People would be more willing to vote in a Libertarian, Independent, or Green candidate at the local level.
Selection of POTUS/VPOTUS would be made by congress in its entirety (535 members). Candidates would have to politic to get votes from the different parties making up the congress and senators would ensure that states have some leverage but the majority would be in the hands of those elected by the people of each state. I do go back an forth on the selection and whether or not to include the senate.
I've run out of time. Hopefully I didn't forget anything. @MegaPoke @poke2001
The system I'd like to see would move away from our current winner take all system and be replaced with proportional representation while also preserving our current geographical representation, for the most part. First, ballot access for congressional elections will have to be eased nationally and some states, like Oklahoma, may have to be forced to comply. Second, amendments would have to be produced. Third, our congress will select the President and Vice President and both will be accountable to congress.
So let's use Texas' 2014 U.S. House election results as our example. Texas has 36 congressional seats and two senators. In 2014 the popular vote split was Republican 60%, Democrat 33%, Libertarian 2%, Green Party 1%, and Independent 1% (Yes, I rounded up for the sake of this example). This would mean that the representation for the people of Texas within the U.S. House of Representin' would be 21 Republican seats, 11 Democratic seats, 2 Libertarian seats, 1 Green Party seat, and 1 Independent Party seat. Keep in mind that this is what it looks like in our current winner take all approach and an environment that discourages voting anything but Republican or Democrat. I firmly believe that a move toward a proportional system would drastically change how seats end up being allocated.
What would this look like nationally? Well, for the ease of producing an example let's use the current polling for President. Clinton 46%, Trump 41%, Johnson 6%, Stein, 2%, and 5% undecided (we'll call this Independent). This would result in a U.S. House consisting of 200 Democratic seats, 178 Republican seats, 26 Libertarian seats, and 9 Green Party seats, and 22 Independent party. Below is the diagram.
Now let's talk selection of senators. Originally, senators were to be selected by the states. This was their representation in our system. With the passing of the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) we moved closer to a true democracy with a national government and further from a federation of republics. This also made lobbying much easier and more affordable by centralizing those who must be lobbied. Under the original design lobbyist would also have to lobby the state legislature. This was by design because they knew that special interest would occur, so why not make it harder?
I propose that we go ahead and leave the 17th amendment in place and pass another amendment that outlines how candidates are presented to the people for election. Basically, each party within the state legislature would select two candidates to be presented to the people. So if you have four parties within your legislature you'd have eight candidates to vote for. Once elected these senators would be beholden to the state legislatures for which they represent. Each state would be required to outline it's own system for removal in the event that representation is not occurring.
I believe that with a proportional system for U.S. House being implemented you'd start to see this same representation within the state legislatures. People would be more willing to vote in a Libertarian, Independent, or Green candidate at the local level.
Selection of POTUS/VPOTUS would be made by congress in its entirety (535 members). Candidates would have to politic to get votes from the different parties making up the congress and senators would ensure that states have some leverage but the majority would be in the hands of those elected by the people of each state. I do go back an forth on the selection and whether or not to include the senate.
I've run out of time. Hopefully I didn't forget anything. @MegaPoke @poke2001
Last edited:
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
Hard to find them. I just remember being put out with him when I heard him. Still, lesson learned. It's time to end the interventionist folly, especially in the Mideast. Hillary is a bought and paid for globalist and will foster more of the same.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
She CONTINUES to defend intervention in Libya and Syria.
You can strip it out all you want. History will keep it in.
Maybe. Hard to get too agitated about those deals -- there's nothing but bad options. You don't have an ISIS caliphate running North Africa. If preventing that was the objective, maybe we handled it okay.
Yep, post Gaddafi Libya is a wonderful democracy completely devoid of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The two governments along with the multiple militia governed areas have Libya running like a well oiled Machine.
A rousing success!
But it was so idyllic before! Lockerbie, the German disco... how could anybody not pine for the good old days? It's so simple and easy in that country -- just pass out some bubble gum and they'll be voting republican in no time. I just can't believe a POTUS hasn't figured out how to make Syrians and Libyans all just get along.
TL;DR version: I would like to see a parliamentary republic with proportional representation.
The system I'd like to see would move away from our current winner take all system and be replaced with proportional representation while also preserving our current geographical representation, for the most part. First, ballot access for congressional elections will have to be eased nationally and some states, like Oklahoma, may have to be forced to comply. Second, amendments would have to be produced. Third, our congress will select the President and Vice President and both will be accountable to congress.
So let's use Texas' 2014 U.S. House election results as our example. Texas has 36 congressional seats and two senators. In 2014 the popular vote split was Republican 60%, Democrat 33%, Libertarian 2%, Green Party 1%, and Independent 1% (Yes, I rounded up for the sake of this example). This would mean that the representation for the people of Texas within the U.S. House of Representin' would be 21 Republican seats, 11 Democratic seats, 2 Libertarian seats, 1 Green Party seat, and 1 Independent Party seat. Keep in mind that this is what it looks like in our current winner take all approach and an environment that discourages voting anything but Republican or Democrat. I firmly believe that a move toward a proportional system would drastically change how seats end up being allocated.
What would this look like nationally? Well, for the ease of producing an example let's use the current polling for President. Clinton 46%, Trump 41%, Johnson 6%, Stein, 2%, and 5% undecided (we'll call this Independent). This would result in a U.S. House consisting of 200 Democratic seats, 178 Republican seats, 26 Libertarian seats, and 9 Green Party seats, and 22 Independent party. Below is the diagram.
Now let's talk selection of senators. Originally, senators were to be selected by the states. This was their representation in our system. With the passing of the 17th amendment (direct election of senators) we moved closer to a true democracy with a national government and further from a federation of republics. This also made lobbying much easier and more affordable by centralizing those who must be lobbied. Under the original design lobbyist would also have to lobby the state legislature. This was by design because they knew that special interest would occur, so why not make it harder?
I propose that we go ahead and leave the 17th amendment in place and pass another amendment that outlines how candidates are presented to the people for election. Basically, each party within the state legislature would select two candidates to be presented to the people. So if you have four parties within your legislature you'd have eight candidates to vote for. Once elected these senators would be beholden to the state legislatures for which they represent. Each state would be required to outline it's own system for removal in the event that representation is not occurring.
I believe that with a proportional system for U.S. House being implemented you'd start to see this same representation within the state legislatures. People would be more willing to vote in a Libertarian, Independent, or Green candidate at the local level.
Selection of POTUS/VPOTUS would be made by congress in its entirety (535 members). Candidates would have to politic to get votes from the different parties making up the congress and senators would ensure that states have some leverage but the majority would be in the hands of those elected by the people of each state. I do go back an forth on the selection and whether or not to include the senate.
I've run out of time. Hopefully I didn't forget anything. @MegaPoke @poke2001
Anyone want to provide some feedback on this idea? I would really appreciate it since I took the time to type it out and am interested in other points of view.
Scrap it all for a minute. How about no representation, but we can assign proxy of your individual votes on a per-issue or per-vote basis, with web-based voting? I can give you proxy of my votes on middle east affairs, and give Mega my proxy for leotard and hair teasing legislation. Why can't everyone vote on whatever electronically? I don't have time to look into everything, but if I'm confident you represent my views on whatever topic, I give you my proxy until I want it back. We can give the same guy proxy on Iraq legislation, and totally different people on abortion legislation.
You have to agree that it's bullshit you have to elect one person to represent you on everything. I think we're at a place technologically where americans should have more direct choice and less representation. I would listen much more and likely to assign my vote to the Iraq War Veterans' Proxy's stance on Iraq and ISIS than either party. Voters would self organize around very specific issues instead of parties.
You have to agree that it's bullshit you have to elect one person to represent you on everything. I think we're at a place technologically where americans should have more direct choice and less representation. I would listen much more and likely to assign my vote to the Iraq War Veterans' Proxy's stance on Iraq and ISIS than either party. Voters would self organize around very specific issues instead of parties.
Well since you got everyone to like my post for a day while that terrible alert system was in place I am going to tell you it sucks.
I don't disagree on your point about representation. However, isn't this idea basically a true democracy with technology?
Sort of, but not really. You're represented by whomever and whenever you want, and not by whoever a majority of people want. It's still representative democracy, just a narrower scope of representation.
Well, in that case why don't we end the cap currently set up at 435 members and decrease the number of people represented by one person and then implement your electronic voting idea? With today's technology there's no reason they should have to be in DC right? One representative per 35,000 would be a hell of a lot better than our one per 750k and would result in over 11,000 representatives. How would that settle with you?
But why make you reduce all of your views and opinions to one representative? Make a digital House of Citizens as a check to the senate. No salaries, no elections, no campaigns...
How would a digital House of Citizens airlift $400 million to Iran in exchange for hostages?
