Religion or politics.
< 1 >
22
 Interest...
2 weeks ago
Since we've learned that discussing religion on this forum is no good...let's move on to politics. I've heard it said that Donald Trump, should he run, would get more votes than Obama. While I don't believe that, I'm curious what those here think.
Who do you want to see on the Republican ticket, and why?
Do any Dems here want to see Obama go?
Etc.
As the Canadian election is coming up lets not leave out my fellow hose-heads, NDP or Conservative? Why or why not. DO you really think the Liberals are as far behind as the polls show?
29
quote #1
27
 ReBoot
2 weeks ago
It's my opinion that had the Republicans gotten Condoleezza Rice to run instead McCain, she would very likely have won by a landslide. Putting aside the fact that she's smart as a whip and would have made a decent leader, she's also a black woman. Like it or not, it would have given her a huge advantage.

Donald Trump's intelligence is without question (it takes brains to build and manage a multi-billion dollar empire, right?), but his potential for bias toward tax cuts for the wealthy would tend to damage his credibility. As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch.. I could see the Liberals making some headway in the Canadian election, in spite of Ignatieff. The NDP will make a bit, but not as much. The Bloc doesn't give a s**t about gaining seats, as long as no one so much as fisheyes dame Quebec. But in the end, I would expect the Conservatives to come back in.

Harper has his faults, but he's solid and controlled. Jack Layton instills all the trust of a transient vacuum cleaner salesman, and gives the distinct impression that he's in over his head. Michael Ignatieff is a well-oiled snob who would rather be living in the US now if he didn't have a shot at the PM desk. Gilles Duceppe is just nuts and everyone knows it.

And that's all I have to say about that.
41
quote #2
2
 tractorC...
2 weeks ago
This is easy.

Obama = lame
Obama's birth certificate = fake
Congress = ignorant b***hes
Palin = soooo yesterday
Huckabee = he's like William Jennings Bryan of the Republican primaries- he runs a lot but he loses the same number
Teaparty = suck

Donald Trump = suckest of them all
- retarded man inherits money then loses it over and over again and can't even do well in business he didn't build anything only got given to him

Donald Trump's hair = OMG KILL IT PLEEZ KILL IT NOW BEFORE IT EATS UR SOUL!!!!

Canada elections = inconsequential


Ok now that we did politics what can we do next?
77
quote #3
22
 Interest...
2 weeks ago
« ReBoot : It's my opinion that had the Republicans gotten Condoleezza Rice to run instead McCain, she would very likely have won by a landslide. Putting aside the fact that she's smart as a whip and would have made a decent leader, she's also a black woman. Like it or not, it would have given her a huge advantage.

Donald Trump's intelligence is without question (it takes brains to build and manage a multi-billion dollar empire, right?), but his potential for bias toward tax cuts for the wealthy would tend to damage his credibility. As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch.. I could see the Liberals making some headway in the Canadian election, in spite of Ignatieff. The NDP will make a bit, but not as much. The Bloc doesn't give a s**t about gaining seats, as long as no one so much as fisheyes dame Quebec. But in the end, I would expect the Conservatives to come back in.

Harper has his faults, but he's solid and controlled. Jack Layton instills all the trust of a transient vacuum cleaner salesman, and gives the distinct impression that he's in over his head. Michael Ignatieff is a well-oiled snob who would rather be living in the US now if he didn't have a shot at the PM desk. Gilles Duceppe is just nuts and everyone knows it.

And that's all I have to say about that.
Agreed on all points. You know how I KNOW that Condoleza Rice is the smartest of them all? She won't run...even though everyone wants her to.

Also laughed at the "in spite" of Iggy...funny.
73
quote #4
27
 ReBoot
2 weeks ago
« Interesting : Agreed on all points. You know how I KNOW that Condoleza Rice is the smartest of them all? She won't run...even though everyone wants her to.
Oh, definitely. It's actually scary that there are so many people willing to spend any amount of money in order to be president. One would think that picking someone that you have to drag kicking and screaming to the White House might make for a less power-crazy -- and therefore better -- leader.
49
quote #5
About Plime
Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

58
 pocksuck...
1 week ago
OK, here's a one for you. Citizens of the UK have the chance tomorrow (5th May) to vote in a referendum on the future of our electoral system.

In brief, we currently have a direct First Past The Post system. The country is divided up into constituencies and for each constituency, the candidate with the highest number of votes wins.

As no defined "post" exists then a more accurate term for this system would be Furthest Past The Post.

In this system it's possible (and happens) that the majority of the electorate has voted for a candidate other than the one than that won.

For parliamentary assembly, a "post" does exist as a majority is required. There are 650 constituencies at present and so to gain a majority, any single party needs to win 326 or more of these to gain control of The House and so the country.

Both of these are based on the notion that there are two contenders for the lead, but this is no longer the case.

Last year's General Election saw no party reach 326 seats and so the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition with the Conservatives. These are two radically different political ideologies, but in return for the coalition support, the Conservatives were willing to offer the Lib Dems a guarantee of a referendum on the voting system employed.

Ideally what the Lib Dems want is Proportional Representation, they have accepted that for this referendum the options are to retain FPTP or switch to a system called AV or the Alternative Vote.

AV gives voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference. In this system, the "post" is 50% of the votes.

The first round of counting just counts the first choice of all voters. If there is one candidate who gets more than 50% of the votes then they win and the count is over.

If no-one gets more than 50% then the candidate with the lowest number of votes is removed from the next round and the ballots that had them as the first choice are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on second choice. This is repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote or to put it another way, some degree of approval and mandate from more than 50% of the voters.

This approval (or lack thereof) obviously exists in the electorate in both systems but can only be expressed in one.

What is on the table doesn't change the way that control of The House is allocated, but it does change the way that people get there.

So, having explained all that, what are your thoughts on which system is better? What about the electoral system where you are? Could that stand any improvement?

And if you could define it, democratic or otherwise, what do you think would be the best system for decided who governs a country?
0
quote #6
22
 Interest...
1 week ago
As I understand it the electoral system is very outdated. When you look at when it was set up it was almost perfect for running elections when there were relatively few people living in a large area. However in the modern era when everything can be done electronically it seems like the US system could use an overhaul.
In the recent Canadian election the question was raised as to why it is in this era the leader of our country is still selected by taking a slip of paper behind a cardboard screen and marking it with a pencil. Surely it could be done electronically.
That being said I was recently in Tanzania after their elections, which was done electronically, and heard from one of their IT guys that the numbers he saw coming in and those reported were different, but no proof remains of any changes. So maybe paper ballots still remain the hardest to tamper with and easier to check in a recount (certainly the "check the box" method leaves no hanging chads.)
0
quote #7
27
 STEELsho...
1 week ago
« Interesting : As I understand it the electoral system is very outdated. When you look at when it was set up it was almost perfect for running elections when there were relatively few people living in a large area. However in the modern era when everything can be done electronically it seems like the US system could use an overhaul. ...
The electoral college is not about communication.

The Constitution is basically concerned with setting limitations on the federal government and insuring that it did not have any more power over the States than it had to have. STATE vs FEDERAL power.

The only place where the PEOPLE are represented is the House of Representatives. Senators represent STATES not people. STATES elect the president and Vice President. The Judicial branch is completely Federal.

That said, if people think it is "outdated" come up with a change and Amend the Constitution. (Warning: This has been tried, and this one almost always dies. You see, STATES approve amendments.)
22
quote #8
35
 chinook
1 week ago
*headdesk*
Canadians voted in a bunch of teenagers and university students as MP's. I think too many Canadians watch too much American TV and decided to vote for the leader of the parties instead of their individual MP's. I mean, sure the leader of the party becomes PM but are Canadians so ignorant they don't think MP's are capable of anything at all? I expect my MP to represent his constituents and vote against his party if it comes to that.

I'm pleased to see a Conservative majority now because they'll actually get things done.

And Canadians are no longer allowed to joke about dumb Americans because we're just as stupid.
130
quote #9
22
 Interest...
1 week ago
« STEELshooter : The electoral college is not about communication.

The Constitution is basically concerned with setting limitations on the federal government and insuring that it did not have any more power over the States than it had to have. STATE vs FEDERAL power.

The only place where the PEOPLE are represented is the House of Representatives. Senators represent STATES not people. STATES elect the president and Vice President. The Judicial branch is completely Federal.

That said, if people think it is "outdated" come up with a change and Amend the Constitution. (Warning: This has been tried, and this one almost always dies. You see, STATES approve amendments.)
Then forget what I said...it is just stupid ;)

[read chinook's comment and still stand by what I said]
27
quote #10
22
 Interest...
1 week ago
« chinook : *headdesk*
Canadians voted in a bunch of teenagers and university students as MP's. I think too many Canadians watch too much American TV and decided to vote for the leader of the parties instead of their individual MP's. I mean, sure the leader of the party becomes PM but are Canadians so ignorant they don't think MP's are capable of anything at all? I expect my MP to represent his constituents and vote against his party if it comes to that.

I'm pleased to see a Conservative majority now because they'll actually get things done.

And Canadians are no longer allowed to joke about dumb Americans because we're just as stupid.
I remember the first time I voted I wanted to know all the candidates for my area so I got information on all of them so I could make an informed decision. I did notice that the Green party candidate was 19 and thought "am I ready to be MP?" and decided that I was DEFINITELY not voting for him (I was 21 at the time).

This time around...voted for whichever idiot had "conservative" next to his name on the ballot, I like Harper.
27
quote #11
2
 h1tler
6 days ago
Is it Godwin if I post here?
-85
quote #12
58
 pocksuck...
4 days ago
« Interesting : As I understand it the electoral system is very outdated.
Seems to be a global them.

FPTP is fine if there are only two parties running.

That majority is 50% and that's clear.

The more parties there are though, the less is required for a majority which can result in barely any mandate at all.
0
quote #13
1
 atoot
3 days ago
-35
quote #14
1
 atoot
3 days ago
Get Indian astrology and Other Nonsense.
-35
quote #15
1
 mosstore...
1 day ago
Hi,

Any more information on this. want to know in depth.
-22
quote #16
+ add a comment < 1 >