Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Our Next President?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: In this system, YOu are totally right

    Originally posted by Polish_Silver View Post
    (emphasis added)

    With our current electoral system, your analysis is right on.
    The elections are not about issues, but persona, identification, party loyalty.

    Candidates who talk about issues (Ron Paul, Sanders) do not fare well in primaries.

    Voters are frustrated because none of the candidates really represents them.

    What we need is an explicitly multi-party electoral system, based on proportional representation.

    That would certainly do the trick. But it's such a huge structural and constitutional change, it seems unlikely. The other thing to consider is the long term. No proportional system has lasted so long as the United States. There's something to be said for longevity.

    In the end of the day, this is how the American system works. Nothing changes for 30 to 50 years. Then suddenly in four or five years everything changes. It's a punctuated equilibrium. And we're due for drastic change, soon.

    All it takes is one wave election where you get 60 Senators, a majority in the House and the Presidency. It happens infrequently. Not since 1964 clearly. Close in 2008, but barely and Kennedy dying killed it. We weren't ready then anyhow. When we are, the change will be remarkable and swift. My money is on fewer than 10 years now. The way it goes is not ordained. But we can't keep going with the way things are for much longer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Polish_Silver
    replied
    In this system, YOu are totally right

    Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
    Also this is because the Republican Party is all but dead in New England for federal offices. ...hunting, I've never seen one dress up like the Gordon's Fisherman, eat lobster, and go offshore fishing.

    And I'm not just making this up:
    ....
    . Going after the presidency just throws it to whoever you took the least votes from and makes people hate independents and third parties for playing spoiler.
    (emphasis added)

    With our current electoral system, your analysis is right on.
    The elections are not about issues, but persona, identification, party loyalty.

    Candidates who talk about issues (Ron Paul, Sanders) do not fare well in primaries.

    Voters are frustrated because none of the candidates really represents them.

    What we need is an explicitly multi-party electoral system, based on proportional representation.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Third parties Must Lose!

    Depends on who is running. A Jeb Bush- Hillary race would have been a perfect setup for the right independent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by DSpencer View Post
    Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site (if that's even true) is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

    We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.
    I can understand your dilemma, I am from a different nation and thus from a different culture. Dr Mercola has some 12 million subscribers world wide and does appear to be very successful financially, though my contribution to that has been minimal over the many years; since another iTulip subscriber recommended him to me and others here. So I am to take it you do not like people that succeed, particularly financially? My experience has been that, by taking his advice, my overall health has immensely improved.

    His site disappeared at precisely the moment it was announced that anti-vaxer sites were to be pulled down. All of them are from the USA; which has the worst health outcome for its citizens, for any first world nation. 25% of your children are Autistic. This last week we watched a BBC TV program that included video of autistic children in a school beating each other senseless; seven teachers trying to hold one of them down. The USA will have a quarter of the population unable to make any input to your society, and the numbers are rising. Yet every effort is being made to prevent debate.

    Yes, I do understand that my view of the why's and wherefores are in total disagreement to yours. That is life and everyone has the right to disagree. Your nation needs help, and I do hope that it gets it. Best wishes.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Third parties Must Lose!

    Also this is because the Republican Party is all but dead in New England for federal offices. We no longer have a single Republican representative in any district in any of our 6 states. Only Susan Collins remains in the Senate, and she's liable to lose in 2020.

    Otherwise, the other 11 Senators from up here caucus with the Democrats, and 9 of them are Democrats. Regionally, the GOP just cannot compete here, much as the Democrats just cannot compete in the Deep South, except against a fatally flawed candidate like Roy Moore.

    But there still are people who do not like the DNC or the Democrat brand here. They simply hate the GOP brand worse. So people like King and Sanders have an opening. For better or for worse, all that "Real America" talk of Palin and Cowboy Hat wearing of W and play to the Mexican border of Trump just anchors the GOP in the south and in southern politics that really don't speak to people up here.

    Clinton also didn't speak to people up here, and lost 4 of the 6 states, and came close to losing the other 2 despite overwhelming party support. Lots of New England is rural. But nearly none of it is evangelical protestant, and nearly none of it is into the southern tropes that have become central to GOP identity. Those tropes do seem to sell better in the plains and midwest, though. But I think there's a cost in the DNC's laser focus on big city cosmopolitanism, just like there's a cost in the GOP's laser focus on evangelical southern pride, and in the Senate, more than any other elected federal body, we find people who fill the gap those foci leave amongst the rest of us who aren't quite yoga yuppies, but who also aren't quite confederate cowboys.

    For all the big name national GOP politicians I've seen dress up like Billy the Kid, eat steak, and go blind hunting, I've never seen one dress up like the Gordon's Fisherman, eat lobster, and go offshore fishing.

    And I'm not just making this up:












    Even when Mitt Romney who won up here goes national, suddenly he looks like this:






    And, of course, it ain't like Billy Jeffs and old Carter didn't do it either, but they were good ol' boys after all:





    All I'm saying is that however right this feels other places, it signals something else up here. Especially because so many of them went to school up here and grew up here and definitely didn't dress like that or sound like that when they were sitting in Phillips or Harvard or Yale classes, and we know it. So for a long time, none of these guys won here. Ford beat Reagan in the '76 NH primary. Kennedy beats Carter in most of New England. Tsongas beats Clinton in NH. Buchanan beats Dole there. McCain beats Bush. The cowboy schtick isn't really a winner up here, even with native Connecticut sons under the cowboy hat.

    So maybe, if you're insistent on the independent idea, the focus is best placed on taking seats in the Senate. You'll have better luck there mathematically than in the House or the White House. But it can't just be about moderate (meaning neoliberal, not populist) policy. It has to be about the dual rejection of the lost cause of the confederacy and of the global liberal elite at the same time. And maybe if you shed the regressive economic policy of centrism and adopt a populist perspective, you'd have a lot of success with a nation-wide independent Senate campaign like this. Maybe if it got big enough, you could build a new party out of it strong enough to challenge one of the big 2.

    But that'd be my strategy, anyways, if I really cared about pushing for independent candidates and whatnot. Going after the presidency just throws it to whoever you took the least votes from and makes people hate independents and third parties for playing spoiler.
    Last edited by dcarrigg; 03-30-19, 07:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by Milton Kuo View Post
    That is the most likely explanation. I notice from the error message that Cloudflare's DNS is being used. I've used Cloudflare's DNS before and its reliability is poor. How poor is it? I find that Comcast, a cable television company, seems to have more reliable DNS. If Chris isn't too concerned about privacy issues, he can use Google's DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). Barring that, he should also be able to access the web site through a VPN or Tor.
    Yeah, Verizon is unreliable enough at resolving I've had to switch to Google's DNS before.

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Third parties Must Lose!

    Duverger's Law has 3 elements:
    1. First past the post
    2. Plurality wins
    3. Single member districts
    The Senate doesn't meet criterion 3. One would predict that independents would have more success there than in the House or the Presidency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Milton Kuo
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
    I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.
    That is the most likely explanation. I notice from the error message that Cloudflare's DNS is being used. I've used Cloudflare's DNS before and its reliability is poor. How poor is it? I find that Comcast, a cable television company, seems to have more reliable DNS. If Chris isn't too concerned about privacy issues, he can use Google's DNS (8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4). Barring that, he should also be able to access the web site through a VPN or Tor.

    Leave a comment:


  • vt
    replied
    Re: Third parties Must Lose!

    A third party candidate can win with 35% of the vote in a three way race. Perot polled at 30% plus in the summer of 1992.

    Bernie Sanders is an independent. Angus King was elected as independent to the Senate from Maine in 2012

    From June 11, 1992 NYT:


    "In the telephone poll of 815 registered voters nationwide, conducted June 4 to 8, Mr. Perot was supported by 39 percent, Mr. Bush by 31 percent, and Mr. Clinton by 25 percent. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.
    In a previous Gallup matchup in late May, Mr. Bush and Mr. Perot were tied at 35 percent each, while Mr. Clinton was supported by 25 percent."
    Last edited by vt; 03-29-19, 04:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSpencer
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by dcarrigg View Post
    I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.
    I edited my post to clarify that I don't know if it's true. It wouldn't surprise me though given the BS that Mercola puts on his site. Maybe the UK is less tolerant of people peddling products with claims they "help to virtually eliminate your risk of developing cancer in the future."

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by DSpencer View Post
    Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

    We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.
    I really don't want to wade in on this one, but is anybody certain any government censored anything here? Looks like it could much more easily be a simple server error--DNS settings mistake made by some IT person somewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • DSpencer
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by Chris Coles View Post
    What you see below is an excellent example of what I am describing and I have to say the sight of this turning up on my home PC, makes me very sad indeed. You see, this occurred this week, not twenty years ago, two days ago. It is the result of perhaps the most honest medical doctor on the internet, Dr. Joseph Mercola, www.mercola.com being silenced; I am no longer permitted to read his criticism of US government agencies and pharmaceutical industrial practices. And no, the action to prevent access was taken by my UK government, not yours. Our government will have been asked to do this by yours. Apart from a very brief news item on BBC TV news, nothing in any newspaper; total silence.

    Now you may well believe, quite honestly, that I am ridiculous. But take my word for it, this is just another example, I could give much more, of the pernicious nature of the lack of any real intent to deliver freedom; by the leader of the free world. Certainly not freedom as I understand the word.
    Dr. Mercola is a fraud who preys on the ignorant and desperate to make a fortune for himself. Your government choosing to censor his site (if that's even true) is a policy question that has nothing to do with the government of the US. It's certainly not evidence of the US government trying to enslave the world.

    We've been through this before. I hate these interactions. You need help and I hope you get it. Best wishes.
    Last edited by DSpencer; 03-29-19, 11:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Polish_Silver
    replied
    Third parties Must Lose!

    Originally posted by vt View Post
    I disagree. An excellent third party candidate can win. Perot showed the possibilities.

    .
    Perot did NOT win, not even close.

    He got about 19% of popular votes, the highest 3rd party performance in more than one century.
    He would have to get 3X that to win.

    T Roosevelt did not win as a 3rd party candidate, even after being president.

    How many congressional seats are held by 3rd parties?

    And of those, how many are not former members of Repocrats?

    The Major party candidates get worse and worse, because there is no alternative.
    It is "race to the bottom " in a two party system.
    People vote based on party loyalty. The parties have no moral or intellectual integrity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Coles
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    There is one other aspect of UBI that is not discussed, loss of work ethic. Here in the UK we have so many on welfare, now including the new Universal Credit, that adds payments to people already in work; that we have to have immigration to provide a work force. Our own young have no concept of work ethic and thus no long term aiming point, other than to get their hands on as much welfare as possible. It is work ethic that has driven the concept of the freedom to make your own way in life; do your own thing; create greater prosperity within your local community; create better opportunity for your young people; give them a better future. UBI completely, silently, removes work ethic; why work when someone will pay you to keep you silent?

    I am reminded of a young man, a bus driver in Brazil who had commented on BBC TV Newsnight now several years ago; "We are all slaves now, except that now they pay us".

    Leave a comment:


  • dcarrigg
    replied
    Re: Atlantic says Immigration way up

    Originally posted by DSpencer View Post
    The basic premise of UBI is somewhat disingenuous. It implies that somehow everyone can get extra money. In reality it's not much more than a redistribution scheme. Then the question just becomes who is going to pay and who is going to benefit. Using a VAT to pay for it muddies the waters a bit, but ultimately the tax has to be paid by someone (or by everyone who uses money through inflation for the MMT sticklers).

    If we are the point where the best or only solution to inequality is to have a sliding scale of welfare not just for the poor but all the way up to people making 6 figures, then let's at least be honest about what we are doing and why.

    I think the question of whether lots of individual welfare/benefit programs should be replaced by just giving money is one worth considering. I think there's good arguments on both sides, but at least it could greatly reduce the bureaucratic overhead expenses. That's really not a central part of UBI though. It's just an optional twist on it. We could do that without UBI or could do UBI without changing existing benefits. In fact, Yang's plan seems to give people the option which seems like the worst idea of all because then you have to keep all the benefits administration in place for every program.
    Once again, nothing I disagree with. +1

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X