|
Post by Doug on Feb 11, 2016 11:07:30 GMT -5
But that's what we are. A collection of "states".
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 11, 2016 11:20:07 GMT -5
They forced their central government on what had been independent states. Well, for comparison, how does Canada do it? Like the former soviet union, or like Illinois? Pretty much like we do it (as in the stupid, old United States "We" and not Illinois). They've got 10 Provenances and 3 territories. From Wiki, "The major difference between a Canadian province and a territory is that provinces receive their power and authority from the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North America Act, 1867), whereas territorial governments have powers delegated to them by the federal government. This means that while a change to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces requires a constitutional amendment, a similar change affecting the territories can be performed unilaterally by the federal Parliament or government. Moreover, in modern Canadian constitutional theory, the provinces are considered to be co-sovereign divisions, and each province has its own "Crown" represented by the lieutenant governor, whereas the territories are not sovereign, but simply parts of the federal realm, and have a commissioner who represents the federal government."
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 11, 2016 11:31:57 GMT -5
Well, for comparison, how does Canada do it? Like the former soviet union, or like Illinois? Pretty much like we do it (as in the stupid, old United States "We" and not Illinois). They've got 10 Provenances and 3 territories. From Wiki, "The major difference between a Canadian province and a territory is that provinces receive their power and authority from the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly called the British North America Act, 1867), whereas territorial governments have powers delegated to them by the federal government. This means that while a change to the division of powers between the federal government and the provinces requires a constitutional amendment, a similar change affecting the territories can be performed unilaterally by the federal Parliament or government. Moreover, in modern Canadian constitutional theory, the provinces are considered to be co-sovereign divisions, and each province has its own "Crown" represented by the lieutenant governor, whereas the territories are not sovereign, but simply parts of the federal realm, and have a commissioner who represents the federal government." Well, we knew it wasn't like Illinois because dead Canadians can't vote. Or, can they?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 11, 2016 11:59:02 GMT -5
The super delegate thing may not be fair but then it wasn't meant to be. A political party isn't a governmental body. As far as I know, a political party is free to designate candidates any way it chooses. If party members want to change the way they do it, all they have to do is get together and make the change. There's really no reason why a political party should be required to nominate any yahoo that walks in, popular support notwithstanding. What Dub said. Primaries are a political decision made by a political party, not a requirement of the constitution or of anything else. Far more presidential candidates have been selected by various parties without a "popular primary vote" than with one. And it could be successfully argued that we had better presidential candidates that were more qualified for office before these beauty pageants...I mean dog and pony shows...I mean primaries were used to select them. Bring back the smoke-filled rooms and the well-considered selection of candidates by party bosses; a process that would not only be in line and spirit with the selection process as practiced by the "founding fathers" and most of our political history but also one which would move us closer to a sensible and pragmatic parliamentary system, one in which an experienced and respected leader of a political party would be the candidate of said party, not some telegenic dingbat that should be selling soap. What the hell kind of political system would chose to put forth an inexperienced kid like Rubio or a blustering clown like Trump as a candidate to be the president of a country? (and if you want to say the same thing about Obama and Sanders, fair enough, do so). The question isn't why we have such a poor selection of presidential candidates, the question is why would we expect anything else given the process we use to choose them. .
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 12, 2016 7:52:40 GMT -5
but democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 12, 2016 9:43:54 GMT -5
. . . , Primaries are a political decision made by a political party, not a requirement of the constitution or of anything else. Far more presidential candidates have been selected by various parties without a "popular primary vote" than with one. And it could be successfully argued that we had better presidential candidates that were more qualified for office before these beauty pageants...I mean dog and pony shows...I mean primaries were used to select them. Bring back the smoke-filled rooms and the well-considered selection of candidates by party bosses; a process that would not only be in line and spirit with the selection process as practiced by the "founding fathers" and most of our political history but also one which would move us closer to a sensible and pragmatic parliamentary system, one in which an experienced and respected leader of a political party would be the candidate of said party, not some telegenic dingbat that should be selling soap. What the hell kind of political system would chose to put forth an inexperienced kid like Rubio or a blustering clown like Trump as a candidate to be the president of a country? (and if you want to say the same thing about Obama and Sanders, fair enough, do so). The question isn't why we have such a poor selection of presidential candidates, the question is why would we expect anything else given the process we use to choose them. Oh, WOW ! That was GOOD !
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Feb 12, 2016 9:52:44 GMT -5
Trump said this morning he is not going to use any more of that fucking profanity.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Feb 12, 2016 10:01:29 GMT -5
What I find interesting about the Democrats super delegates is that the party that represents itself as all-inclusive turns out to be exclusive after all. It's not the the whole thing is rigged to assure a particular result but in a close race the super delegates can swing the party convention in favor of a particular candidate if they choose to do so.
I did some research and found that the Democratic super delegates are ranking party officials and/or prominent current or former officeholders. Lest one gets the impression that I'm picking on the Democrats, the Republicans have their own version of the super delegate. Unlike the Democrats, however, the Republican super delegates are bound to vote based on the result of the popular vote in their respective states.
While all of this sounds patently unfair in a democratic system it does conform to what a political party is all about; furthering it's own agenda. It stands to reason that either political party would want to stand in support of a candidate that embodied it's philosophy and goals.
One of the weaknesses of the two major political parties in the U.S. is that there isn't really such a thing as a "card carrying" Democrat or Republican. To join the Democratic party all one has to do is go to the DNC website and give them your e-mail address and zip code and click on the "I'm in" button. It's not like joining the Lions Club or the Loyal Order of the Moose. Theoretically, even Doug could become a Democrat. In most states all you have to do to participate in the party primary is to register as a member of either party. My father-in-law was a registered Democrat in Illinois from the time he was old enough to vote. He voted in every Democratic primary and although he's been dead for 30+ years he may still be voting for all I know. But he never voted for a Democrat in a general election. It was his way of poking the Democrats in the ribs.
Presidential candidates have 3 choices, they can run as a Republican, a Democrat, or as a candidate for an independent party. If they choose to run as a Democrat or a Republican they can't be stopped from claiming that affiliation regardless of how tenuous it may be.
Now we're in the midst of an election cycle in which two major candidates have claimed party affiliations that don't really exist. Both Sanders and Trump have only declared for their respective parties only comparatively recently. Both are "rogue" candidates with views and policy proposals that don't match up well with their state party affiliation. I would not be surprised if the DNC is hoping that the super delegates will be their "out" if the primary results are close and Sanders has more delegates based on the results of the primaries. The Republicans may not have that choice. Imagine the embarrassment of being one of the two major political parties and not having a candidate to support. Only in America.
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Feb 12, 2016 10:11:43 GMT -5
Frankly, I'm a member of the Loyal Order of Moose. Requirements are stringent.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 12, 2016 10:24:29 GMT -5
I have considered registering as a R or D where I can vote in primaries. But that would be hypocritical.
But Lar is right we have two independent candidates running as D and R. The advantage to them is if they win the nomination they won't have to run against a D or R.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958
|
Post by Dub on Feb 12, 2016 10:46:57 GMT -5
…Presidential candidates have 3 choices, they can run as a Republican, a Democrat, or as a candidate for an independent party. If they choose to run as a Democrat or a Republican they can't be stopped from claiming that affiliation regardless of how tenuous it may be. … In theory, at least, they CAN be stopped. It's the party that makes the decision, not the electorate at large. Though with the advent of “beauty pageant” primaries it seems less likely that a party will exercise control. In the past, parties were a group united by a political philosophy and set of goals, both long and short term. They set their platforms and THEN sought a candidate to represent it. They didn't look around at declared candidates to see which was the best fit, they nominated one of their own. Someone known and trusted by party insiders. Originally, candidates didn't even campaign on their own behalf. The party did the campaigning and speech making. The first speech a candidate made was to accept his party’s nomination at the party convention. The second speech was his victory or concession speech following the general election. Today, anyone with sufficient financial backing and an effective PR staff can become the nominee and even President. And therein, as ePaul pointed out, lies the problem.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958
|
Post by Dub on Feb 12, 2016 10:52:50 GMT -5
I have considered registering as a R or D where I can vote in primaries. But that would be hypocritical. I often think hypocrisy is the only thing that truly differentiates mankind from the other animals. So, go for it, Doug. Exercise your humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 12, 2016 10:55:28 GMT -5
I have considered registering as a R or D where I can vote in primaries. But that would be hypocritical. I often think hypocrisy is the only thing that truly differentiates mankind from the other animals. So, go for it, Doug. Exercise your humanity. If I registered as a D I would vote Sanders and if a R I'd vote Trump. Any thing to mess up the establishment politicians.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958
|
Post by Dub on Feb 12, 2016 10:58:57 GMT -5
I often think hypocrisy is the only thing that truly differentiates mankind from the other animals. So, go for it, Doug. Exercise your humanity. If I registered as a D I would vote Sanders and if a R I'd vote Trump. Any thing to mess up the establishment politicians. I don't think you'd be alone in adopting that as your purpose. Go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 12, 2016 11:01:00 GMT -5
Frankly, I'm a member of the Loyal Order of Moose. Requirements are stringent. I'll bet that head butting really hurts when cows are in heat. There's got to be a better way of mate selection. (PS - I do love the bellowing)
|
|
|
Post by lar on Feb 12, 2016 11:20:34 GMT -5
In theory, at least, they CAN be stopped. It's the party that makes the decision, not the electorate at large. Though with the advent of “beauty pageant” primaries it seems less likely that a party will exercise control. In the past, parties were a group united by a political philosophy and set of goals, both long and short term. They set their platforms and THEN sought a candidate to represent it. They didn't look around at declared candidates to see which was the best fit, they nominated one of their own. Someone known and trusted by party insiders. Originally, candidates didn't even campaign on their own behalf. The party did the campaigning and speech making. The first speech a candidate made was to accept his party’s nomination at the party convention. The second speech was his victory or concession speech following the general election. Today, anyone with sufficient financial backing and an effective PR staff can become the nominee and even President. And therein, as ePaul pointed out, lies the problem. Mark, I think you've identified a basic problem that is shared by both political parties. By whatever means, both parties have ended up the two extreme opposing ends of the political spectrum. It's my belief that the country as a whole doesn't share the current philosophies of either party. Both are completely out of touch. Enter Bernie and Trump. I don't think either is fit to be president. But I do understand their appeal to people who are fed up with things as they are. The fact that both are running campaigns that seem to have some traction must be of great consternation to the leadership of both parties. The time might be ripe for the formation of a third party more closely aligned with the views of the majority of voters. A party with a platform that contained enough economic reform for the right leaning independents and enough social reform for the left leaning independents might also have considerable appeal to nominal Democrats and Republicans who are searching for a real choice. I doubt that a viable third party could happen during this election cycle but if things continue in this vein I think it could be a real possibility in the near future. The biggest problem of course is to first form such a party, figure out how to fund it without seriously eroding it's philosophy, and then find a suitable candidate who really doesn't want to be president but who is willing to run for the good of the country. On second thought, don't pay any attention to the paragraph above. It'll never happen. Altruism may not be dead but it does seem to be on life support.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Feb 12, 2016 11:25:03 GMT -5
Frankly, I'm a member of the Loyal Order of Moose. Requirements are stringent. That was more or less my point. I used to be a member of the Loyal Order of Moose. That ought to tell you that their requirements aren't overly stringent. Still they have standards. There are no standards for running for president. Both parties ought to give that some thought.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 12, 2016 13:09:00 GMT -5
A lot of you guys are comparing Bernie and Trump, but I think you’re missing something. They are both outsiders, one by virtue of recently revoked independent status, the other because he has never held public office, and because they both oppose the established political system. They are both relative extremists. And they both came out of nowhere and are showing very strong, if not dominating, the primaries.
Trump appeals to a large portion of conservatives. Yes, I know he’s not a "true conservative.” He’ll never get endorsements from some of those on the right because he advocates universal healthcare and imminent domain, among other things. But even if he’s not appealing to your idea of a true conservative, his bloviating bigotry has captivated enough of the right to put him in the number one spot by a factor of more than 2 to 1. It’ll probably take most of the remaining Republican candidates’ withdrawal before a lone opponent can challenge and possibly overcome his lead.
Bernie appeals to liberals. I don’t think that needs any qualifiers at all. His policies are sound liberal ideology, with the possible exception of gun control. There’s no reason that I’m aware of for a liberal not to like him, based on liberal philosophy. The only reason or reasons I may not vote for him are more pragmatic. I still wonder if he’s not too liberal to represent ALL of America. And I wonder if “political revolution” is really a good idea. I’m all for a revolution of thought. I’m all for liberal voices helping to educate and influence the populace and the political process. I just don’t know if I think a political revolution is a good idea from the guy who’s supposed to be steering our ship over the next four years.
So if you really feel the need to compare Bernie to someone on the Republican side, I think Ted Cruz makes more sense as the Anti-Bernie, although Bernie is not an asshole, doesn’t look like he’s lying even when he’s saying his name (unless you think the whole “Eduardo Raphael” thing is a lie in itself), and he’s never been known to cheat in an election. Except for some glaring differences, I think Bernie and Cruz match up better. Both seem to capture the more extreme purity of their respective sides, and both may be horrible choices to send into the general election and/or the White House.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 12, 2016 13:12:58 GMT -5
Can we ask Todd to relinquish his handle so someone else can use it?
|
|
|
Post by lar on Feb 12, 2016 20:10:44 GMT -5
The reason for comparing Sanders with Trump is that Sanders is a maverick and he very well may be too liberal for most liberal Americans. Cruz isn't a good comparison because he is, by any standard, what passes for a mainstream Republican candidate these days.
It's difficult for me to judge Sanders because I'm not a liberal so I doubt if I'm aware of the nuances. However, with one exception, most of my liberal acquaintances aren't happy with either Sanders or Hillary. The exception is a longshoreman who I suspect has spent too many hours on the docks inhaling diesel fumes. He likes Bernie. I can't repeat here what he has to say about Hillary. Let's just say he's a plain talker and surprisingly politically incorrect for a liberal.
On the other side of things; there is new polling out from South Carolina that says that things have remained mostly unchanged for the Republicans. Trump's numbers have increased slightly. Cruz, Rubio, and Bush trail and are relatively tightly bunched. According to the article I read that's consistent with national polls.
It seems that the only thing Trump needs to worry about is how long the next 3 or 4 challengers decide to stay in the race. What would happen if the race was suddenly whittled down to two candidates? My tendency is to think that Trump isn't going to do a whole lot better than he is right now. If that's true he loses 65% to 35%. Today. Maybe not 2 or 3 months from now when the results of several primaries are in and the non-Trump votes have been split among several candidates. The key, as far as the Republican party is concerned, may be to choose a candidate and then convince all of the others to drop out for the good of the party. Cruz and Rubio are young enough to be able to understand that they can have another shot somewhere down the line. Kasich and Bush may be feeling that this is their last shot. In any case, as I wrote earlier today, altruism is not at it's height of popularity.
|
|