I have zero interest to watch the debates on tv. I ll check out the summaries in the news tomorrow.
Exactly, why make up my own mind and develop my own thoughts. I need it spoon fed to me.
I agree with Scruffy. there's no voting so it doesn't matter to me right now. Im interested to hear analysis but I don't care what the candidates say. I have plenty of time to decide than waste my team on this.
My comment was more about how the media was going to spin the debate. And depending on what news source you gravitate to that's the spin you're going to get...I hate the term "echo chamber", but it fits here.
I have zero interest to watch the debates on tv. I ll check out the summaries in the news tomorrow.
Exactly, why make up my own mind and develop my own thoughts. I need it spoon fed to me.
I agree with Scruffy. there's no voting so it doesn't matter to me right now. Im interested to hear analysis but I don't care what the candidates say. I have plenty of time to decide than waste my team on this.
My comment was more about how the media was going to spin the debate. And depending on what news source you gravitate to that's the spin you're going to get...I hate the term "echo chamber", but it fits here.
Im interested in analysis as an observer rather than looking for information. I cam only speak for me obviously. My opinions on issues are locked in, so I'll vote for the person closest to that, come primary time in my state. It is really early to devote time to this, imo. But I would probably be considered politically engaged, generally.
I have zero interest to watch the debates on tv. I ll check out the summaries in the news tomorrow.
Exactly, why make up my own mind and develop my own thoughts. I need it spoon fed to me.
I agree with Scruffy. there's no voting so it doesn't matter to me right now. Im interested to hear analysis but I don't care what the candidates say. I have plenty of time to decide than waste my team on this.
My comment was more about how the media was going to spin the debate. And depending on what news source you gravitate to that's the spin you're going to get...I hate the term "echo chamber", but it fits here.
Im interested in analysis as an observer rather than looking for information. I cam only speak for me obviously. My opinions on issues are locked in, so I'll vote for the person closest to that, come primary time in my state. It is really early to devote time to this, imo. But I would probably be considered politically engaged, generally.
I agree with the above. I'll also add that having 20 clowns in the clown car provides little time for any one of them to have salient policy discussions. These debates, especially with a 1 minute hard stop per candidate is great for creating sound bites, one-liners, and zingers. So I mostly skip these debates and tune in periodically to see if anyone is bleeding. I'll be much more interested when the field is down to 4 or 5 candidates who can have more meaningful debates. Looking forward to the next round of cuts to eliminate some of the chaff.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
Same here, members of the party decide on the partys leader. The election is something similar in length I guess. Maybe a bit longer.
Our TV debates are as stupid though. Haha.
YOUR TV debates are stupid? I've never seen them so I'll have to take your word, but ours get stupider with each one. Frankly, they've been kind of embarrassing.
I like that we vote on primary candidates rather than just having the party choose. But I hate the process of how spread out all the votes are. I think it should all be on the same day, or do ten states on this Tuesday, ten states on the next Tuesday, etc.
Take my friend in 2016 for example. He liked Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination. The problem though is by time it was time for Pennsylvania to vote, Bush had long been vanquished. That's a dumb system. So people in Iowa and New Hampshire rejected Bush, so supporters in other states don't even have a chance to vote for him?
And I completely agree with Hugh about the length being ridiculous. This primary cycle will last for a year and a half (early 2019 through summer 2020), then the general election campaign only lasts three or four months (Summer 2020 through November 2020). How silly is that?
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
Maybe money. The long cycle is definitely a product of this century. It didn't used to be this way. The convention used to actually be important. I blame everything on 24 hour news.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
I think we have tended to view the PM somewhat differently than how Americans view the president; more as a representative of a party and the party platform and less of a loose cannon making decisions independently of the party. Of course, who the person is does affect the vote, but the party knows that when they select the leader.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
I think we have tended to view the PM somewhat differently than how Americans view the president; more as a representative of a party and the party platform and less of a loose cannon making decisions independently of the party. Of course, who the person is does affect the vote, but the party knows that when they select the leader.
Let's throw Trump out as an aberration. No one else can be considered a loose cannon in our annals except maybe Jackson.
But imagine if the party just straight out nominated Hillary. Isn't that the very criticism that has plagued the DNC, leading to the 20 person debate stage? It goes to show that someone still always criticize.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Do you really live in Sweden?
No. I live in the US with at least 10 american flags around me, 45 automatic rifles, hospital bills up to my neck and 20-30 awfully out of date opinions on how a country should work.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Do you really live in Sweden?
what kind of insulting question is that?
Because for someone who has such strong opinions in the States, there seems to be a lack of understanding of both the political system and tax policy of Sweden.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Do you really live in Sweden?
what kind of insulting question is that?
Because for someone who has such strong opinions in the States, there seems to be a lack of understanding of both the political system and tax policy of Sweden.
you don't need to have a thorough understanding of tax and political systems in a country to have an opinion on policy. seriously, people in the US have shown to be some of the most politically ignorant, domestically and internationally. do those people not count when it comes to their opinion?
i would argue it is actually quite rare for any citizen to know the ins and outs of how the system actually operates when it comes to the items you mentioned, but that doesn't exclude them from being able to tell which policy is good and which is bad. that's ludicrous.
Every time these US primaries come up, I realize that in Canada:
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote -the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?
that part isn't necessarily better, or worse, it's the length of time that is absolutely ridiculous. obviously, in the US, each party wants to know which candidate for leadership is most electable, which obviously makes sense. But I think if you have a finger on the pulse of your party's supporters and where you want it to go, you probably already know that. On the other hand, 300 million is a tad more than 30 million.
to me, it's all tied to money.
But they still vote within the party? It's not just some dudes in a room deciding Pope-style obviously? So it's still a democratic process. Even if by a representative democracy style...?
So do you go to your convention and nominate your candidate with your vote? Is it any member of the party that shows up or is it only certain members that get a vote?
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
Do you really live in Sweden?
what kind of insulting question is that?
Because for someone who has such strong opinions in the States, there seems to be a lack of understanding of both the political system and tax policy of Sweden.
you don't need to have a thorough understanding of tax and political systems in a country to have an opinion on policy. seriously, people in the US have shown to be some of the most politically ignorant, domestically and internationally. do those people not count when it comes to their opinion?
They get to vote by virtue of their citizenship. But presumably they're not on this board either. The vast majority of these debates involve people who understand the political and tax policies of the US, no matter which side of the aisle that they reside. How does one relentlessly advocate for the policies and structures of their home county without even understanding the fine details under which they live? It's bizarre.
I understand policy just fine. how the system is structured is often a mystery to me. I don't need to be a constitutional expert to have a valid opinion on policy.
I understand policy just fine. how the system is structured is often a mystery to me. I don't need to be a constitutional expert to have a valid opinion on policy.
i would argue it is actually quite rare for any citizen to know the ins and outs of how the system actually operates when it comes to the items you mentioned, but that doesn't exclude them from being able to tell which policy is good and which is bad. that's ludicrous.
So you argue that a country should have universal health and education and not even understand the tax policy necessary to achieve it? Ok, way to set a low bar for knowledge. Sorry that I discount such uninformed opinions. You can't have a math argument with someone that only understands half the equation.
and in the closed threads, he seemed to understand his tax system just fine. I'm not sure why not knowing how a party leader is chosen makes a lick of difference if he can argue whether his country is more livable than another. to me, THAT'S bizarre.
i would argue it is actually quite rare for any citizen to know the ins and outs of how the system actually operates when it comes to the items you mentioned, but that doesn't exclude them from being able to tell which policy is good and which is bad. that's ludicrous.
So you argue that a country should have universal health and education and not even understand the tax policy necessary to achieve it? Ok, way to set a low bar for knowledge. Sorry that I discount such uninformed opinions. You can't have a math argument with someone that only understands half the equation.
again, you are arguing two different things. policy vs system/structure. stick to one or this can't go any further.
I understand policy just fine. how the system is structured is often a mystery to me. I don't need to be a constitutional expert to have a valid opinion on policy.
Comments
It is really early to devote time to this, imo. But I would probably be considered politically engaged, generally.
Disclaimer: that is not my original thought. I heard it elsewhere a while back, but it’s funny as shit.
-the party chooses its own leader in a private vote
-the election campaign trail itself lasts about 6 weeks.
the US system is just so preposterous. half of every presidential term is spent on looking at the next election. it's so absurd.
www.headstonesband.com
The election is something similar in length I guess. Maybe a bit longer.
Our TV debates are as stupid though. Haha.
I like that we vote on primary candidates rather than just having the party choose. But I hate the process of how spread out all the votes are. I think it should all be on the same day, or do ten states on this Tuesday, ten states on the next Tuesday, etc.
Take my friend in 2016 for example. He liked Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination. The problem though is by time it was time for Pennsylvania to vote, Bush had long been vanquished. That's a dumb system. So people in Iowa and New Hampshire rejected Bush, so supporters in other states don't even have a chance to vote for him?
And I completely agree with Hugh about the length being ridiculous. This primary cycle will last for a year and a half (early 2019 through summer 2020), then the general election campaign only lasts three or four months (Summer 2020 through November 2020). How silly is that?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
to me, it's all tied to money.
www.headstonesband.com
But imagine if the party just straight out nominated Hillary. Isn't that the very criticism that has plagued the DNC, leading to the 20 person debate stage? It goes to show that someone still always criticize.
I don't belong to any party so I have no say or vote...
But in Sweden I think the different districts that a party is built up of nominate and somehow cast their votes in the end. Something like that. So I guess it works something like a "regular member" votes for the people to lead his/her district, and those leaders in turn represents their district in the the next national level. I guess.
But as been said, we vote more for "parties" than individual "leaders" here. They are of course the face of the party and with television and all becomes more important - but we still vote on a party because of the platform more than the leader.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
I understand policy just fine. how the system is structured is often a mystery to me. I don't need to be a constitutional expert to have a valid opinion on policy.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com