[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

True leaders work for idealistic principles, NOT MERELY for money and POWER. That is where many people are wrong. And too many people try to win a discussion by bringing up the 1950s RED scare buggaboo about a communist behind every bush. Warren Buffet does NOT need ANY more money - he works for the pleasure of solving problems and meeting and influencing people!

Yeah, I love it when really wealthy people, close to the end of their life, tell us that we don't don't need any more really wealthy people...

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Caymus

You mean "hate" speech as you and your cohorts see it?

Hate speech is one form of it, but no, not just hate speech. LIES. Provable lies that endanger lives and the country. I fail to see how anyone can be in favor of dishonesty, especially in those chosen to govern.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

They should be chosen when they are determined they have the best legal minds in this country and swear to faithfully follow the constitution.'

Unfortunately it has become way to politicized.

I agree with this, completely.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

I don't think that was what was meant at all.

Media can be held liable for publishing intentional untruths that cause harm (defamation), only it rarely happens. Media just hide behind the First Amendment and nothing is done. But media can be held criminally liable as well. In cases where intentional spreading of false information, "FCC rules specifically say that the "public harm must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties."

Maybe its time we not only hold media accountable for provably damaging hate speech, but one another as well.

Thank you, you said what I meant better than I said it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by fgaba1949

I seriously dont think of mandatory voting makes any sense .
One right the people should always have is to decide to vote or not .
Honestly by mandating people to vote is very counterproductive...if the person doesn't like either candidate then they should have the right to NOT VOTE ....
the problem isn't in the voting it's not having candidates that people want to vote for...

"None of the above" should always be an option on election ballots. If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't count. It doesn't matter, it isn't recognized or acknowledged. If you vote "None of the Above" then your vote is specific, it counts, it matters, it makes a statement.

If enough people who are tired of the status quo were to vote "None of the Above" they'd have to select new candidate choices and schedule a new vote.

None of the Above is a valid option in India and comes with criteria and rules and significance. It's not perfect there - there have been NOTA votes that were greater than the votes for actual candidates in some elections there.

But it lets the government know that "We the People" are not happy with the options we've been given. It puts them on notice. It also puts the rest of the country on notice, when the NOTA vote is big enough.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

"None of the above" should always be an option on election ballots. If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't count. It doesn't matter, it isn't recognized or acknowledged. If you vote "None of the Above" then your vote is specific, it counts, it matters, it makes a statement.

If enough people who are tired of the status quo were to vote "None of the Above" they'd have to select new candidate choices and schedule a new vote.

None of the Above is a valid option in India and comes with criteria and rules and significance. It's not perfect there - there have been NOTA votes that were greater than the votes for actual candidates in some elections there.

But it lets the government know that "We the People" are not happy with the options we've been given. It puts them on notice. It also puts the rest of the country on notice, when the NOTA vote is big enough.

Unless a state or city has certain rules against it, even if 50% say none of the above whoever gets the majority of the balance (assuming two candidates) would win I do believe. Having said this, do not see how this would ever happen.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Males only win in greater % today because of tradition and Washington being slow to change. Has not everyone heard the statement that a woman has to be TWICE as good at whatever job to get hired versus a man? That IS TRUTH, not conjecture. Again for inspiration, we can go to other countries for answers........Australia, New Zealand and many European countries have already had WOMEN leaders. And AGAIN the US is the BACKWARD outlier.

At the current US rate of REGRESSION, we will soon look like the "Handmaiden's Tale"!!!!!! And China will be eating our lunch.

We don't have to be twice as good. We only have to try twice as hard, in order to be considered just as good as our male counterpart. Thankfully for us women, that isn't very difficult to do.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

And how do you insure that the person on the registration card is the person who wants to vote, that the person has only one "card" that they will not walk down the street and vote again? honor system?

Not sure if you've heard of this thing called electronics but it's kinda popular these days. You show up with that card, and an ID to show that you are the person whose name is on that card. The registrar fills in the little boxes on the top of a blank ballot with your registration ID# (like those boxes you had to fill in when you took placement tests, IQ tests, SATs, back in grade school). You fill in your choice for candidate, and stuff it in the box. Those little boxes the clerk filled in, that gets electronically sent into the system, so if anyone tries to vote with the same ID number, their vote is not counted. You can't vote again.

You only get one card. You don't get to request it. It's sent to you. If you claim you lost it or never got it, you have to go through the process of getting a new one, and the number for the old one is cancelled and not useable.

Sort of like if you lose your key card at the hotel. They cancel the digital data from that card and issue you a new one with a unique set of data.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

....and in your perfectly equal society, why should anyone bother to work harder, have better ideas than anyone else.
No reward = no effort.
Sounds very much like communism.

He's not talking about everyone having equal ownership of everything. He's talking about the poor being less poor, and the ultra-wealthy contributing more in the form of taxes.

The poor will still not be wealthy. And the ultra-wealthy will still be ultra-wealthy. But no one will want for food, clothing, shelter, education, health, or opportunity to succeed. It's doing what Jesus tried to teach his disciples - when you find a man who has fallen, don't tread on him. Instead, reach out your hand and lift him up.

[Woodbear]

I don't even know where the "middle" is as it continues to evolve at the feelings of others. What was the middle at the turn of the century is considered extreme today. I am not looking forward to the day I am on the wrong side of the grass, but I sure do not see myself wishing to exist in the United States decades from now. Sadly this country is circling the drain as it enters its final passage out the sewer.

[imalowany]

Originally Posted by jswirs

The largest threat to our country comes from within. (Trying to be PC). However, I do believe in FAITH OVER FEAR, and GOOD WILL TRIUMPH OVER EVIL, eventually.

Yes, but the cost is always always incredibly high.

[djplong]

The one thing that gives me hope is that, when polled individually on various political topics and policies, there is a lot more out there that Americans agree on than is disagreed upon. However, we've been carved up into two tribes that are simply reactionary. If "the other tribe" likes it, it MUST be opposed and vice versa.

I've been doing some homework on this for discussion in another place and there are things out there that poll in numbers that any politician would salivate over. But tribalism keeps people from actually TALKING to each other and coming to a consensus.

I remember the days when bitter political opponents would craft legislation after hours in a restaurant. I remember when exaggerations were "ok" (sometimes you need them to make a point) but out and out lies DID count against you!

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Actually, it is post - Revolutionary War BS. Emphasizing "State", as in the United STATES of America". Our federal government was originally formulated to have very little power: just what is listed in the Constitution per the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

It is the advantage of a republic that the states have more or less equal footing with one another. The people are proportionally represented in the House of Representatives, but nothing passes without the consent of the Senate, where all the states are equal.

So in theory if only one person lived in Nebraska, and 50 million people live in New York, Nebraska still has the voting power that NY has. Crazy.

[Luggage]

Statistically more people are voting with their feet away from both parties and turning independent. There lies the true hope. It has become an US versus them situation where everything has to be partisanship and not let's discuss where we can meet in the middle. Radicals on the left radicals on the right

[Luggage]

The designers of our government were some of the smartest people of their time or even of today. They created a system that balances out population versus each state as well as having three different branches of government so that each has certain powers the others don't. And in fact the supreme Court has ruled that the states do not have all the same powers as government. If you ever watch ONN news they have an excellent public announcement talking about states rights and that several things returned and overturned in the 1800s ensuring States being sued by private citizens as well as by the federal government. In fact right now Arizona is putting up containers to block a wall even though it's on Federal Land and it'll be an interesting fight if it goes to court. To the editor of not being political and just discussing the news of the day I'm not being left or right just talking about what's happening. If you really interested you can take out books on our form of government. It's really interesting how well thought out it was as well as the fights during the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If you really want to know crazy, look at Israel's form of government where they have to have a new election every 9 months is there a 25 different parties that consolidate power depending on what they're trying to pass as laws that day of the week.

Originally Posted by Love2Swim

So in theory if only one person lived in Nebraska, and 50 million people live in New York, Nebraska still has the voting power that NY has. Crazy.