The fact that Clinton supporters are angrier at Bernie for being angry at the unfairness of this election than they are at the blatant anti-Sanders bias is extremely telling. One of the many reasons I will not be supporting Hillary in November if she is the Democratic nominee.
Brian - I know you said you weren't posting anymore, but I do recall one thing that I believe you said, which is a 'politically' conservative position. Didn't you say you were conflicted about the minimum wage hike?
People are hungering for more choices but The American political system excels at suppressing voices of opposition.
...much like this place.
There are lots of criticisms I have about this place - but that it excels at suppressing the voices of opposition certainly doesn't make the list. Not once have I seen your opponents in debate here ask you to stop discussing. The whole point of an effective debate is to have both sides presenting with passion and non-fallacious evidence to back up their points. That is exactly what most wish for on this forum, and while there have been fallacious attacks, I'd hardly say that silencing opponents has been a goal of anyone here. Rather, winning debates has. Which is natural, because otherwise why debate at all?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
People are hungering for more choices but The American political system excels at suppressing voices of opposition.
...much like this place.
There are lots of criticisms I have about this place - but that it excels at suppressing the voices of opposition certainly doesn't make the list. Not once have I seen your opponents in debate here ask you to stop discussing. The whole point of an effective debate is to have both sides presenting with passion and non-fallacious evidence to back up their points. That is exactly what most wish for on this forum, and while there have been fallacious attacks, I'd hardly say that silencing opponents has been a goal of anyone here. Rather, winning debates has. Which is natural, because otherwise why debate at all?
So, you're responding to my last half sentence and not the Jill Stein video?
The whole point of an effective debate would be both sides stating their cases...w/ supporting evidence.
People are hungering for more choices but The American political system excels at suppressing voices of opposition.
...much like this place.
There are lots of criticisms I have about this place - but that it excels at suppressing the voices of opposition certainly doesn't make the list. Not once have I seen your opponents in debate here ask you to stop discussing. The whole point of an effective debate is to have both sides presenting with passion and non-fallacious evidence to back up their points. That is exactly what most wish for on this forum, and while there have been fallacious attacks, I'd hardly say that silencing opponents has been a goal of anyone here. Rather, winning debates has. Which is natural, because otherwise why debate at all?
So, you're responding to my last half sentence and not the Jill Stein video?
The whole point of an effective debate would be both sides stating their cases...w/ supporting evidence.
At this point in time - yes. I have a job, which I quite like, and can't really watch a link until after working hours.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Great article... well stated and the true state of the race.
I'm not sure now is the right time for this article. Most Sanders supporters are still in the headspace of doing everything they can to permit Sanders to become the official Democratic nominee - far from the headspace of "if he loses, who will I vote for".
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Great article... well stated and the true state of the race.
I'm not sure now is the right time for this article. Most Sanders supporters are still in the headspace of doing everything they can to permit Sanders to become the official Democratic nominee - far from the headspace of "if he loses, who will I vote for".
Well it's not like he's going to be dragged behind the barn and shot if he doesn't win the nomination. I think it's always a good time to think about these things. No good burying ones head in the sand. I totally understand what you're saying. I would just disagree with such a line of thinking, since I think it is important to consider all possibilities from the beginning. I do believe in strategic voting, so I think it would be useful for Bernie supporters (which I am, as a non-voter) to consider alternatives. That does not mean that their support is lessened at all IMO. I guess some do see it that way though.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
That op-Ed piece fails to mention the reality of the 2000 race. In placing blame on the third-party candidate so the two-party system can prevail? I don't view it as a failure, more an example of how we are confined to a system that fails us, and failed us big-time that year. It's exactly why Sanders is running the Democratic ticket. Read below how the media influenced outcome, an incredible example of how the media is involved. Popular vote doesn't matter either, another thing proven that year. The 2000 election is the best example of an election being rigged, until this year. There is still argument across the Internet as to who really won that election.
The presidential election of 2000 hinged on the outcome in Florida. First, the television networks said that Vice President Al Gore had carried the state. Then, the state’s election was considered “too close to call.” Then, the networks declared Texas Governor George W. Bush the winner. The presidential election was so close that it took five weeks to determine the winner. Vice President Al Gore carried the East and West Coasts and inland industrial cities, while Texas Governor George W. Bush won much of the Midwest and Plains, as well as the South. Gore gained a half-million more votes than Bush, but Gore lost the Electoral College when he lost Florida. Bush's official margin in Florida was by 537 votes.
With the presidency hanging on a few hundred votes in a single state, there were lawsuits and requests for recounts. Bitter disputes centered on confusing ballots, missing names from voting rolls, and subjecting minority voters to multiple requests for identification. The punch card ballots posed a major problem--they were vulnerable to voter error. Many ballots were called into question because voters failed to punch a hole all the way through the ballot. In an extraordinary late-night decision, the U.S. Supreme Court halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. A narrow majority of the Justices said that the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court violated the principle that “all votes must be treated equally.” It also ruled that there was not enough time to conduct a new count that would meet constitutional muster.
The 2000 presidential election was the first in 112 years in which a president lost the popular vote but captured enough states to win the electoral vote.
Great article... well stated and the true state of the race.
I'm not sure now is the right time for this article. Most Sanders supporters are still in the headspace of doing everything they can to permit Sanders to become the official Democratic nominee - far from the headspace of "if he loses, who will I vote for".
No, while there is still a slim chance, we are realistic. All across the US is the conversation of whether we would settle with Hillary or not.
^^ I lived and voted in Tampa during the 2000 election. The confusion of the butterfly was real. It wasn't just punching it through, rather the alignment was all off. I'm pretty sure I voted for Gore, but I guess you never know.
I know I didn't vote for Nader who was wholly unqualified to be a President. He was running on grievances and purely domestic issues. But the media confusion did not deliver the election to Bush. It was the Scotus and the 5-4 decision to stop the recount that delivered the election to Bush, considering he won the original counting.
I have no issues with the loser of the popular vote winning the election. That's not how our democracy was constructed. If someone wants to bitch about the electoral college, call a Constitutional Convention. And although it had been 112 years since this happened, it was the fourth time it happened in our history.
And Free, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but if we truly had three parties in this country as Sanders people seem to advocate, three RELEVANT parties, you could have every single election decided in the House. Just keep that in mind when the kids don't show up for mid-terms. You are aware of that right, or do I need to source that information?
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Did you check out that video that Benjs replied to, Soul? It's good.
I did, and it is good. Just saying that a 3+ party system isn't necessarily so hot either. BUT the biggest benefit is that there is definitely more debate and ,more equal representation in government... The US's entire government system would have to change first though. The US has a 2 party system because the structure of the US government feeds into that. Would be great if the US could switch from a Republic to a parliamentary system.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
HA...."nearly crushed the Canadian spirit". Could be the funniest thing I've ever read on these boards.
Er, glad I could make you laugh. It was more a figure of speech (thought that would be obvious), but there is still some meaning behind it. Didn't you notice the immediate change among most Canadians the day Harper left office and ever since? Most people did and do, from what I've heard and read and felt and observed. It is very palpable.
We must travel in a very different circle of Canadian friends.
I'm with PJ_Soul on this one.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I normally disagree with Billy cuz he's douchy but I think he's 50% right here. Socialism does stifle innovation. I agree with that. But people do have the right to protest to make things better HOWEVER, they don't have to the right to shut down other people's speech. I say this in reference to his Trump statements.
Last, I'm not pro-Israeli by any stretch, but I find it interesting how much sympathy there is for the Palestinians in the very liberal crowd, considering their total disregard for women's rights and their downright hatred of gays. I'm not really sure what to make of it all.
i can't really tell what corgan's position is on bernie ... not sure he's actually criticizing him ...
in any case - socialism stifling innovation is gotta be one of the most obtuse beliefs out there ... c'mon ... really? ... what conservative propaganda piece do people play when they go to bed to believe this stuff ...
It's simple economics. Why would I invest differentially in human capital, time, resources, effort, sweat equity, etc. when the gov't taxes me at a marginal rate that exceeds my time and stress. In other words, if I'm taxed at 30% when I make a 100k, but 60% when I make 200k, why should I put the extra effort, time and long nights and weekends to make 200k? I worked twice as hard but only have 50k more to show for it. It's just not worth it.
Innovation doesn't come from working 40 hours a week and punching a clock. It comes from people who are willing to work and do things that the rest of the population isn't willing to do. But when they are not going to see the fruits of that labor because the gov't is going to assess a high rate of taxation, what's the point? Altruism?
It's not a winning argument to say that China, Soviet Union, Sweden, Canada, France and any other socialist country is more innovative than the capitalistic US.
Tell me... please, how this is being obtuse. Give me a list of the greatest innovations originating from a socialist society. Tell me the greatest medical advances coming from a socialist medical community and I'll start layering in innovations comign from Hopkins, Mayo clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Shriners, etc. You cannot take the financial incentive out of the market. It dies. This isn't propaganda. It's economics and history.
You think canada is Socialist? You can't be serious? Yes we have universal health care and decent maternity leave and few public paid holidays ... hardly socialist we are.
Fair enough. I won't hang that on you. I'm not sure where the line of calling a country socialist actually exists. We have socialist programs in the US of course, but we are fundamentally capitalist. Canada certainly has capitalism.
In a way I do not consider the things I mentioned as socialist programs ... every person deserves health care, and its much better that it comes out of ta
Yeah, a three or four party system isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to me IMO - it's what got us stuck with Stephen Harper for a decade, which nearly crushed the Canadian spirit (but not quite) ... but it's not worse than a two party system.
It's also the same system that allowed Trudeau to win, or Martin or Chretian or any other PM.
I've mentioned this a few times, but a three+ party system in the US is really impractical. If no one wins a majority of electoral college votes, the top two candidates go to the House for a vote. Any competitive third party would essentially make the House the decider of the presidency.
We have a three plus party system ... Federally it's either the conservatives or liberals that always win. For me democracy has got nothing to do with how many parties any said country has ... A true democracy would include referendums on all major issues, I think it's ridiculous that all major decisions are left up to 300-400 politicians, they should be there to handle the day to day mundane decision ... All major issues should go to people.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
The whole point of an effective debate would be both sides stating their cases...w/ supporting evidence.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/a_letter_to_a_bernie_or_bust_voter.html?utm_source=web&utm_medium=twitter
Any election should have an accurate count.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3377
I know I didn't vote for Nader who was wholly unqualified to be a President. He was running on grievances and purely domestic issues. But the media confusion did not deliver the election to Bush. It was the Scotus and the 5-4 decision to stop the recount that delivered the election to Bush, considering he won the original counting.
I have no issues with the loser of the popular vote winning the election. That's not how our democracy was constructed. If someone wants to bitch about the electoral college, call a Constitutional Convention. And although it had been 112 years since this happened, it was the fourth time it happened in our history.
And Free, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but if we truly had three parties in this country as Sanders people seem to advocate, three RELEVANT parties, you could have every single election decided in the House. Just keep that in mind when the kids don't show up for mid-terms. You are aware of that right, or do I need to source that information?
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon