Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by Annachie » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:23 am | |
Annachie
Posts: 3099
|
OK, I just read tha Trump is looking at David Petraeus as sec state.
Seriously, what the actual fuck? Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ still not dead. |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by The E » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:31 am | |
The E
Posts: 2704
|
On another forum, I remarked that it was a good thing that Trump ackknowledges the need for continuity in foreign policy; that he chose to use "mishandles classified files" as the point of continuity is a bit weird though. It is interesting to see this though. It's yet another display of just how far Trump and his handlers intend to go in terms of hypocrisy and how far his supporters are willing to follow this particular course. (Also, fun fact: As part of his probation agreement, his probation officer has unrestricted access to any and all documents Petraeus handles. Have fun with that.) |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by Annachie » Fri Dec 02, 2016 4:35 am | |
Annachie
Posts: 3099
|
Honestly, I suspect Trump puts out names like this as a distraction.
But still. Oh, on a diferent note, one of Trump's campaign staffers was just found guilty of 10 counts of elction fraud. Granted from a few years ago, but what campaign hires someone who hs been charged with election fraud to workan election? Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ still not dead. |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by Eyal » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:21 am | |
Eyal
Posts: 334
|
Off the top of my head, I can only think of two ways to do that without significant changes (including greater centralization): 1) Greatly increase the frequency of purges of invalid voters from the rolls. 2) Purge the rolls completely after every election. Both options will greatly increase the efficacy of voter disenfranchisement efforts; the second one in particular is going to be a major hassle for citizens, given the frequency of elections in the US. Either way, this is going to be expensive - will voters accept higher taxes for the purpose?
That is of course your prerogative, but then don't start blaming corruption (and/or the other party) for the drawbacks inherent in your chosen system.
IIRC, they were defrauding ACORN. As I recall, the workers in question were essentially contract workers being paid by the number of people they registered. So they just made up voters to pad their counts. |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by Tenshinai » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:27 am | |
Tenshinai
Posts: 2893
|
Oh no, you´re obviously wrong, because that would mean his delusions were actually, you know, delusional... And he obviously knows otherwise so clearly reality will just have to adjust! Seriously though, constitutionally, the same is true here even if governments coming and going is usually handled in parliament. And as Daryl noted, people in USA have overall LESS actual ability to affect their government than in many other nations. This kinda makes PZs great declamations more than a little bit ridiculous and absurd, i think. And i know of no other nation that is not more dictature or oligarchy than democracy, that works so hard to keep it´s citizens from voting.
Marvellous! Of course he needed an expert on the matter, so he could be certain of how many illegal votes Clinton got, clearly! |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by Annachie » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:31 am | |
Annachie
Posts: 3099
|
Hey Biochem.
30 seconds of research does wonders. California requires SS numbers to enrol to vote, and the electoral comission (or whatever their name is) being a government agency can CHECK THOSE SS NUMBERS FOR CITIZENSHIP STATUS. Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ still not dead. |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:50 am | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
Didn't mention Australia in my posts, did I? France's view of sovereignty is collective not individual. That difference is what my post discusses. The distinction is important. I wonder if you understand that? |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:53 am | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
Eyal, I don't blame the system, but do recognize the constraints improving the system must work within.
|
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by PeterZ » Fri Dec 02, 2016 10:42 am | |
PeterZ
Posts: 6432
|
All the examples you cite are not individual expressions of sovereignty, but collective. My point stands for most of Europe. Obviously, that's how they like it. Equally obviously as Brexit displayed, there is a move away from greater centralization of power in Europe. France is next to chime in. We'll see if they prefer to have more localized sovereignty of continue to subsume more of their sovereignty into the European Union. My initial point focused on the difference in perceived sovereignty between the US and Europe. The US view holds that sovereignty resides in individuals not in any collective. Europe prefers a collective view of sovereignty. Brexit suggests that even Europe is revisiting their preference on sending more of their sovereignty away from home and keeping more closer to the individual. |
Top |
Re: US Presidential Candidates | |
---|---|
by gcomeau » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:16 pm | |
gcomeau
Posts: 2747
|
And as I just rather clearly pointed out to you there is no difference. In the US: Citizens. France? Citizens. Britain? Citizens. Canada? Citizens. Australia? Citizens. Germany? Citizens. Spain? Citizens. Italy? Citizens. Greece? Citizens. Sweden? Citizens. New Zealand? Citizens. Etc... Because they **ALL REGULARLY ELECT THEIR GOVERNMENTS.** |
Top |