Snore

To the Spineless Twit who Wrote NYT Op Ed

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Dog said:

No...they plead guilty they are guilty and the statement of offense describes exactly what they are guilty of (as opposed to what you or Sol doggie style it to be).

As adjudicated by the courts and a judge. Glad to have you on board. Finally.

 

6 hours ago, Dog said:

None of which has any bearing on my point which is that the investigation has morphed into a search for a crime reversing the order of normal jurisprudence.

Uh, no. Investigations searching for crime are common. Take for example, tax evasion. The only way you find that crime is by searching for it before knowing it is there. It is a standard order of normal jurisprudence for a wide variety of crimes. There is no easy way to say this - you're just wrong on the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dog said:

The guy is an asshole but subjecting him to "fishing expeditions" in search of a crime is to reverse the normal order of jurisprudence and is definitely not applying the same standard as other modern presidents with the exception of Bill Clinton.

And one of the relentless moralizing partisan assholes who did that to Bill Clinton is a "great guy" a "moral man" and a "standup guy" who deserves a seat on the Supreme Court, right Dog?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think your point is valid - and would suggest that if "none of the above" won?  That the election re-do would have to happen within a relatively short period of time (120 days?), and that the outgoing President be made a statutory lame duck - able to act only in the interest of a national security matter.   I think that knowing that the dupoloy candiates had a chance of NEITHER making it in would do wonders for focusing them on the core rather than the fringe.   

I would suggest that if the "none of the above" had any chance of "winning" - one of your third party candidates could have garnered at least one electoral vote in the last fifty years or so.

More importantly, what happens in the fantasy case where the people actually return that result... but the second (and third, and fourth) elections come back with the same results? Years of a neutered executive branch seems to be the best case scenario. Supreme Court judge appointments can be held off for years, economic ties destroyed whilst the government cannot commit to them, and so on.

But, frankly, the issue is that your country cannot get a single electoral vote for your third party candidates. If the voters were that sick and tired of the duopoly, they'd have gotten alternatives at least one of the electoral votes by now. "None of the Above" is a protest without an answer. It's both lazier and less effective than voting third party... and your country isn't really interested in that option yet.

 

6 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

All pie in the sky whinging, but, I'm ready to see a change. 

Weren't you complaining about change that doesn't actually accomplish your goals is not worth it? Why vote Democrats just to see change and all that. If you want to see change - look at realistic options, cos chasing pie in the sky is the best way to guarantee the status quo (at least in your electoral system).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
22 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So again, I'll ask you.... what is the goal other than embarrassment.  What do you THINK the returns will show?

Probably that he's nowhere *near* as rich as he claims to be. With an ego like his, that's more than enough reason to hide the returns, and also why the IRS would have no interest.

 

I think I made it clear in my OP that this was why I thought he would not release his returns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 9:06 AM, Bent Sailor said:

With no ill will whatsoever to the old broad, Queen Lizzy can't shuffle off fast enough for the good of Australia. Especially with Charles still next in line for the throne. A few years of him on our currency and Aussies will be clamouring to cut ourselves free of the pompous twit.

How does that old broad affect AUS?  My understanding is she has pretty much zero bearing on your politics or gov't other than being a face on your money.  What would change with the monarchy gone from AUS?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
10 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think your point is valid - and would suggest that if "none of the above" won?  That the election re-do would have to happen within a relatively short period of time (120 days?), and that the outgoing President be made a statutory lame duck - able to act only in the interest of a national security matter.   I think that knowing that the dupoloy candiates had a chance of NEITHER making it in would do wonders for focusing them on the core rather than the fringe.   

I would suggest that if the "none of the above" had any chance of "winning" - one of your third party candidates could have garnered at least one electoral vote in the last fifty years or so.

I actually agree with Bents here.  As someone mentioned before, the issue in the US is the FPTP "winner take all" voting method.  It pretty much locks out 3rd party candidate out of the duopoly.  Although I'm not convinced there is a better method unless we were to move to a true parliamentary system, which I am not in favor of.

@A guy in the Chesapeake, I think there ARE several things we could do that would improve the quality of our elections and our candidates. 

  1. Remove all party affiliation information next to the candidates name on the ballot.  That would reduce the voting the straight party line ballot for those lazy low information voters.
  2. Perhaps have a short paragraph associated with each candidate that summarizes their position or their top 3 agenda items that voters have to read before they can select a name.
  3. Shorten the campaign season to a fixed period.  Say 6 months before the primary and no formal campaigning is allowed outside that window.
  4. Allow open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party.
  5. Have ALL the primaries on the same day in one big national election.  A super super tuesday for instance.  The candidates have 6 months to do all their campaigning and then everyone votes at once.
  6. Limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend by setting a hard spending cap.  This would open the field to many 3rd party candidates who can't compete on the basis of $$.  I would even go so far as to mandate public campaign financing, where every candidate who meets a certain threshold is given the same amount of cash to spend and they can spend no more.
  7. Set hard term limits for congress critters.  I would limit the senate to 2 terms of 8-10 years each and the House at 2 terms for 4-6 years each.  It would stop the perpetual and never ending campaign season that starts they day after they are elected.  They would have time to build seniority and have time away from special interests to serve their constituents.
  8. Strictly limit lobbyist's access to politicians.  Lobbyists should have no better access than a normal voter has.  They can attend town halls, write letters, buy ads, march outside the office with signs, etc.  
  9. Set a 5 year ban on politician's and staffer's ability to leave public office and go to work in the private sector that is related to their previous job.  
  10. Strictly limit corporate and private donations and spending on candidates unless that corporation or individual has a physical presence in that state where the election is being held.  For instance, someone with a business in NY could not spend money on a Senate race in AL.  Only the constituents of that state should have a say in who they elect.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of our voters.  At present, I am not hopeful on that front.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

How does that old broad affect AUS?  My understanding is she has pretty much zero bearing on your politics or gov't other than being a face on your money.  What would change with the monarchy gone from AUS?  

She currently has little influence outside sapping some tax dollars and being a rubber stamp. However, she is somewhat beloved of the older folks in Australia and they are loathe to vote for reforming Australia as a republic whilst she is still alive. Not much love for Charles & Camilla though, and they're the next couple in line for the throne. Won't be long after they're the head of state that Aussies will push again for being a republic. At which point we can separate the choice of executive government leadership from the whims of the majority legislative party. Something I see as a good thing.

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with Bents here.  As someone mentioned before, the issue in the US is the FPTP "winner take all" voting method.  It pretty much locks out 3rd party candidate out of the duopoly.  Although I'm not convinced there is a better method unless we were to move to a true parliamentary system, which I am not in favor of.

Preferential voting and compulsory voting. The former stops the whole "first past the post" nonsense wasting any vote that isn't for one of the two big parties and the latter means that politicians need to appeal to the majority of those they govern, not just those that they can motivate through GOTV campaigns. The latter would also kill in the crib any tactics designed to depress voters from certain demographics from getting the time or opportunity to vote - if everyone has to vote, that means that you can't "accidentally" prevent them from doing so.

 

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of our voters.  At present, I am not hopeful on that front.  

Agreed. At present, your voters are simply those most motivated to vote. Being motivated to vote and being representative of your nation's views & preferences are not necessarily the same thing. One of the reasons out country hasn't hit the same potholes yours has, despite our conservatives trying to follow the latest yankee stupidity in regards to political campaigning, is that our politicians have to appeal to EVERYONE. Not just those that are politically active nor just those that can get riled up by the duopoly's respective GOTV campaigns. Every person who can vote in their electorate, must vote and that means appealing to a narrow but vocal & active base means near jack shit when it comes to the ballot box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

She currently has little influence outside sapping some tax dollars and being a rubber stamp. However, she is somewhat beloved of the older folks in Australia and they are loathe to vote for reforming Australia as a republic whilst she is still alive. Not much love for Charles & Camilla though, and they're the next couple in line for the throne. Won't be long after they're the head of state that Aussies will push again for being a republic. At which point we can separate the choice of executive government leadership from the whims of the majority legislative party. Something I see as a good thing.

I actually could care less about Liz nd all her offspring to the n'th generation. However I *do* like having a relatively independent last-resort authority that can put the kybosh on stupid political games. You're too young to have voted back in the 70's; I was just old enough. Voted ALP in 1974 and the joint sitting got us Medicare. Voted against in 1977 because the ALP Govt had really, really lost the plot.

The Lefties are still bent out of shape over that but the GG sending the decision to the people got a very substantial electoral result.

So - I'll quite happily support a republic when someone puts forward a proposal that actually does something other than causing the PM of the day to have even more power than they do now. However if you think that any Govt or any persuasion will put forward a model that removes their power and transfers any of it to a President or equivalent, I think you'll have a very long wait.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

I would suggest that if the "none of the above" had any chance of "winning" - one of your third party candidates could have garnered at least one electoral vote in the last fifty years or so.

I would suggest Hospers and Nathan got one 46 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Remodel said:

I think it's pretty clear that Mueller has been pretty tight lipped on the subject and that statements on anyone's part regarding his investigation are pure speculation at best, or wishful thinking at worst. Why don't we wait and see before branding anything?

Wait and see, now there's a thought. Where have you been with that for the last year and a half?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Dog said:

Wait and see, now there's a thought. Where have you been with that for the last year and a half?

That’s rich. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think I made it clear in my OP that this was why I thought he would not release his returns.

who knows, Trump does and doesn't do shit because he's a stupid stubborn shit. While I tend to think he's lied about his wealth (Wilbur Ross certainly did), I'm almost certain Trump's lied on his tax forms. He certainly did for the Trump Foundation and the public has much greater willingness to scrutinize than the IRS apparently. But at this point it could just be Trump not backing up a casual lie, which he does all the time.

At a tactical level this is one of those ways to prey on Trump's irrationality. He's a stupid, vain, man and gets really pissed about stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The degree to which Trump mobilizes closet liberals, minorities and those too self absorbed to get involved are off their asses and into the voting booth will be the downfall of his party. 

The Trump party, aka the GOP, is alienating the conservatives, patriots and smart people. They’ve already pissed off women and brown folks. 

They are gonna burn the bitch down. @Shootist Jeff will be pleased. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

So - I'll quite happily support a republic when someone puts forward a proposal that actually does something other than causing the PM of the day to have even more power than they do now. However if you think that any Govt or any persuasion will put forward a model that removes their power and transfers any of it to a President or equivalent, I think you'll have a very long wait.

Public outcry has caused government to back down on positions they'd rather not before and we'll make them do so again. 

I agree that the three msin parties wouldn't put forward a proposal that lessens their capability to control the executive government without pressure, I just think they'll not have a choice, when Charles is head of state. An active and involved head of state is better than a rubber stamp GG.

FWIW, I foresee the pressure for a presidential model coming from the Senate cross-bench not the house of reps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 6:26 AM, Dog said:

Wait and see, now there's a thought. Where have you been with that for the last year and a half?

I've been pretty consistent on that point. You've just not been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Remodel said:

I've been pretty consistent on that point. You've just not been paying attention.

He does that a lot. Seems to miss the point that one can call out his shit without having to indulge in it ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to guessing. I was reading about the delightful nickname "Moderate Dog" just now.

There's a guy who might have been growing a bit of an axe to grind over the last few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 2:21 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with Bents here.  As someone mentioned before, the issue in the US is the FPTP "winner take all" voting method.  It pretty much locks out 3rd party candidate out of the duopoly.  Although I'm not convinced there is a better method unless we were to move to a true parliamentary system, which I am not in favor of.

@A guy in the Chesapeake, I think there ARE several things we could do that would improve the quality of our elections and our candidates. 

  1. Remove all party affiliation information next to the candidates name on the ballot.  That would reduce the voting the straight party line ballot for those lazy low information voters.
  2. Perhaps have a short paragraph associated with each candidate that summarizes their position or their top 3 agenda items that voters have to read before they can select a name.
  3. Shorten the campaign season to a fixed period.  Say 6 months before the primary and no formal campaigning is allowed outside that window.
  4. Allow open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party.
  5. Have ALL the primaries on the same day in one big national election.  A super super tuesday for instance.  The candidates have 6 months to do all their campaigning and then everyone votes at once.
  6. Limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend by setting a hard spending cap.  This would open the field to many 3rd party candidates who can't compete on the basis of $$.  I would even go so far as to mandate public campaign financing, where every candidate who meets a certain threshold is given the same amount of cash to spend and they can spend no more.
  7. Set hard term limits for congress critters.  I would limit the senate to 2 terms of 8-10 years each and the House at 2 terms for 4-6 years each.  It would stop the perpetual and never ending campaign season that starts they day after they are elected.  They would have time to build seniority and have time away from special interests to serve their constituents.
  8. Strictly limit lobbyist's access to politicians.  Lobbyists should have no better access than a normal voter has.  They can attend town halls, write letters, buy ads, march outside the office with signs, etc.  
  9. Set a 5 year ban on politician's and staffer's ability to leave public office and go to work in the private sector that is related to their previous job.  
  10. Strictly limit corporate and private donations and spending on candidates unless that corporation or individual has a physical presence in that state where the election is being held.  For instance, someone with a business in NY could not spend money on a Senate race in AL.  Only the constituents of that state should have a say in who they elect.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of our voters.  At present, I am not hopeful on that front.  

Some interesting points, Jeff - getting a sponsor for any of those might be tough.  Hey Sol - you still thinking about that petition?  If so - I'm serious about taking it up up here, and think that a couple of Jeff's suggestions might be worthy of consideration as change items. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 8:39 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
On 9/15/2018 at 10:21 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I actually agree with Bents here.  As someone mentioned before, the issue in the US is the FPTP "winner take all" voting method.  It pretty much locks out 3rd party candidate out of the duopoly.  Although I'm not convinced there is a better method unless we were to move to a true parliamentary system, which I am not in favor of.

@A guy in the Chesapeake, I think there ARE several things we could do that would improve the quality of our elections and our candidates. 

  1. Remove all party affiliation information next to the candidates name on the ballot.  That would reduce the voting the straight party line ballot for those lazy low information voters.
  2. Perhaps have a short paragraph associated with each candidate that summarizes their position or their top 3 agenda items that voters have to read before they can select a name.
  3. Shorten the campaign season to a fixed period.  Say 6 months before the primary and no formal campaigning is allowed outside that window.
  4. Allow open primaries where anyone can vote for any candidate of any party.
  5. Have ALL the primaries on the same day in one big national election.  A super super tuesday for instance.  The candidates have 6 months to do all their campaigning and then everyone votes at once.
  6. Limit the amount of money that a candidate can spend by setting a hard spending cap.  This would open the field to many 3rd party candidates who can't compete on the basis of $$.  I would even go so far as to mandate public campaign financing, where every candidate who meets a certain threshold is given the same amount of cash to spend and they can spend no more.
  7. Set hard term limits for congress critters.  I would limit the senate to 2 terms of 8-10 years each and the House at 2 terms for 4-6 years each.  It would stop the perpetual and never ending campaign season that starts they day after they are elected.  They would have time to build seniority and have time away from special interests to serve their constituents.
  8. Strictly limit lobbyist's access to politicians.  Lobbyists should have no better access than a normal voter has.  They can attend town halls, write letters, buy ads, march outside the office with signs, etc.  
  9. Set a 5 year ban on politician's and staffer's ability to leave public office and go to work in the private sector that is related to their previous job.  
  10. Strictly limit corporate and private donations and spending on candidates unless that corporation or individual has a physical presence in that state where the election is being held.  For instance, someone with a business in NY could not spend money on a Senate race in AL.  Only the constituents of that state should have a say in who they elect.

But at the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of our voters.  At present, I am not hopeful on that front.  

Some interesting points, Jeff - getting a sponsor for any of those might be tough.  Hey Sol - you still thinking about that petition?  If so - I'm serious about taking it up up here, and think that a couple of Jeff's suggestions might be worthy of consideration as change items. 

Thanks.  However, I don't expect any of the partisans here on either side to take them, much less discuss them, seriously.  Too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now