The Democratic Candidates
Comments
-
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf0 -
Let's throw Trump out as an aberration. No one else can be considered a loose cannon in our annals except maybe Jackson.oftenreading said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
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.0 -
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.0 -
mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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"0 -
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.0 -
what kind of insulting question is that?mrussel1 said:
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
what kind of insulting question is that?mrussel1 said:
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.0 -
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
what kind of insulting question is that?mrussel1 said:
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
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?mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
what kind of insulting question is that?mrussel1 said:
Do you really live in Sweden?Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
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?Spiritual_Chaos said:
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...?HughFreakingDillon said:
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.mrussel1 said:
That's an interesting perspective. So the people have no direct voice in your leader. How's that better?HughFreakingDillon said: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.
to me, it's all tied to money.
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.0 -
Didn’t seem like that bad a question actually.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
policy and systems are two different matters.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Are you really from Canada?HughFreakingDillon said:policy and systems are two different matters.
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.hippiemom = goodness0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said: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.0 -
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
-
again, you are arguing two different things. policy vs system/structure. stick to one or this can't go any further.mrussel1 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said: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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I call it America Jr.cincybearcat said:
Are you really from Canada?HughFreakingDillon said:policy and systems are two different matters.
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help