quote:Something like that that has been lost must be earned back, and I'm not willing to sacrifice this election to test a trust that the people of this country broke 200 years ago. It's too important. I'm idealistic, probably a good bit more than I should be, but I'm also realistic too. I find a balance between them
Now that I totally agree with. Trust is something earned, not given, and when it is broken it must be earned back. But here is the thing, you blame the people for not forcing more of their leaders, but I blame the leaders for not stepping up. As I said before, the onus is on our leaders to get us to vote for them, and though I have never said that the people are devoid of responsibility (go back and read--I never have), what I have been arguing for is truly a balanced look at what Obama has done. My balance however is not between idealism and realism (my idealism *is* realism--but that's another debate), it is between democrat and republican, liberal and conservative.
Obama is the candidate of change, his entire platform during the primary was about how he would bring a new kind of politics to the fore-front, it was about how hope could change and shape this nation, and in fact, that is the reason he beat Hillary Clinton, an opponent with almost identical views. During the primary, that sales pitch worked and now he is gets to justifiably throw that out the window because the election just got more difficult and because winning above all is what matters? Hypocrisy is still hypocrisy no matter what it says on your voter registration card.
quote:Name calling can lose an election. Trivializing it like that is your attempt to make Obama look silly, but to me it makes you look like you don't understand presidential election politics and the effects simple words have on people.
Actually, it was my attempt to trivialize what both sides have been doing the few weeks because this cannot possibly be what the election is about. What I think makes us all look silly is when we take the American people for granted, when we think they are stupid and cannot possibly understand the, well, nuances of, I kid you not, name-calling. Words have meaning, no doubt, but if we don't speak down to people, if we change the way we argue, if we can show that we don't think they people are stupid, then no amount of history can keep us from both changing our fundamental beliefs about humanity and humanities actions themselves. You talk about the history of stupidity on the part of the electorate, but could it be the case that maybe, just maybe, if we just gave them an honest and fair chance, they might just surprise us?
I have said it before and I'll say it again, give people the knowledge and power to do the right thing, and they will surprise you by doing it. Maybe the problem isn't that the people suck, maybe the problem then is that we just haven't given them right opportunity...
quote:McCain is bringing a gun to a knife fight, and you're solution is to have Obama let himself get shot at 20 paces using the naive notion that the people will step in to take the bullet. I love the idea, really I do, and like I said, I support it in theory, but it just doesn't work.
No, my solution calls for Obama to counter McCain's gun with a better gun, just not the same one. My scenario calls for Obama to actually do something like being a leader or teacher and it calls for him to find a better way, not the easy way.
quote:I don't think the American people as a whole are stupid. I think most of them are perfectly able to understand what's going on, but that the majority of them don't take the time to understand. Hell, barely a majority take the time to even vote, let alone understand.
I just have a couple of questions, now I know you support Obama (as do I) so why is this such a bad thing with regard to Obama? As you said, I believe it's because of all the people who are voting against Obama because he is a Muslim or because of some other stupid reason, is that right? You believe that is the civic duty of all Americans to vote and to make the most informed decision that they can, and it is because of the people that do not do this, that Obama should do all he can to counter the negative campaign of John McCain, and thus, his campaign is justified. One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
Here is a better one, do you think Kerry wins in 2004 if the people of this country do their civic duty?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: The longer this campaign goes on the more I am utterly convinced in the nessesity of the Electorial College as well and I was against it at first to boot since it eliminates the value of the individual vote.
As counter-intuitive as it sounds, the accountability of a presidential campaign to individual votes would invite the tyrany of the majority. As much as we might not like it in some cases, Americans depend on the rights of their states to protect them from the majority.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Electoral College does nothing to protect the minority. Only twice in history have popular vote and EC vote not been the same. Both of them were razor thin margins. But the Electoral college provides no protections in Congress or the Supreme Court. The protections we rely on from the states have more to do with states' rights versus federal power than the EC, which has nothing to do with states' rights it's merely an apportionment method. Well okay, I shouldn't say it does nothing to protect the minority, now that we have states with ultralow populations like Wyoming and Alaska in comparison to other states, their votes are worth more per person. But no state enjoyed such an advantage when the system was set up. They didn't even have Congressional membership caps until long, long after the Constitution was ratified.
quote:You talk about the history of stupidity on the part of the electorate, but could it be the case that maybe, just maybe, if we just gave them an honest and fair chance, they might just surprise us?
If all of a sudden candidates ran campaigns with halos over their heads and we never had to worry about another lie again? Certainly. But despite the fact that candidates aren't angels, the truth is still out there to be found if someone looks hard enough. Maybe you'll settle for meeting me half way. Do I think the FIRST responsibility should be on the candidates to hold themselves to the highest possible standard of civil public discourse and discussion? Yes, sure I do. But, when they choose not to engage in a positive campaign, then it falls to the people to both hold their feet to the fire and to expose their falehoods. I know you haven't said that they have no duty, but you haven't said that they should do anything. Given your lack of specifics, I'm left to assume that your glaring absence of information in fact means you support nothing at all in that sense.
I guess my problem is the fact that like I've said before, your view gives candidates no reason to change because it only rewards good behavior in theory, not practice, or if it does, only very, very rarely. Candidates, unless someone exceptional comes along, aren't going to change unless we force them to, and just waiting around for that guy to appear is a great way to assure that nothing ever changes. If you want change, make it happen, don't wait for someone to hand it to you.
quote:Maybe the problem isn't that the people suck, maybe the problem then is that we just haven't given them right opportunity...
Why can't it be both?
quote:No, my solution calls for Obama to counter McCain's gun with a better gun, just not the same one. My scenario calls for Obama to actually do something like being a leader or teacher and it calls for him to find a better way, not the easy way.
I actually think he has been, until maybe very, very recently. But it's tough to compare different elections. Compared to McCain though, I think he's doing stellar work.
quote:One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
Hard to say. I think if literally every American were to do that, there'd be a seachange in American politics, and I have no idea how it would swing. I think there a lot of people that pay absolutely not attention at all and just say to hell with all of them without bothering to get into the details, and I have no idea where those people would place their vote if they got involved. No one does.
quote:Here is a better one, do you think Kerry wins in 2004 if the people of this country do their civic duty?
I'd have to recheck some polling data to get an idea. We're four years after the fact, and I don't remember the details all that well, so I can't answer that either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left," geography professor John Agnew of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study, said in a statement.
"Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said Agnew, who studies ethnic conflict.
I hope reports like this quell the smugness I see in many conservatives who tout how successful the troop surge was.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the FEC website, Gore won by 543,895 votes. In an election where 104.5 million votes were cast, I'd call that razor thin.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys seriously the electoral college is terrible.
It's like if we used to do elections entirely by vote count and then some guys sitting around said one day "hey, what's the best way to increase voter apathy in America and make the system more vulnerable to local fraud?"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
I know your debate is focused more on Lyrhawn, but I thought this was a compelling question and I thought I'd give my take on it. I honestly don't know who would be leading if this were the case. I feel as though if Americans would 'do their homework' and figure out the truth from the beginning, I think we would be in an entirely different campaign. I think McCain wouldn't have had to fold in to the Republican right, I think instead he would still be that valiant crusader for humane illegal immigration reform, ending torture in any form, and keeping a legitimate maverick image.
The problem is that in order to win in the primaries, he had to become the red-meat eating cookie-cutter Republican. He had to 'walk the walk and talk the talk' to get the votes he needed. If he didn't have to do this, I think that Obama would have more easily been able to maintain his rhetoric of a new form of politics.
But to answer your question in regard to how both campaigns have been playing out, I think that Obama would have a larger lead because while both camps are guilty of some malicious negativity, I think John McCain's campaign has brought in far more, and if Americans were to 'do their homework' they would feel more betrayed and lied to by John McCain than Barack Obama.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do I think the FIRST responsibility should be on the candidates to hold themselves to the highest possible standard of civil public discourse and discussion? Yes, sure I do. But, when they choose not to engage in a positive campaign, then it falls to the people to both hold their feet to the fire and to expose their falsehoods.
Fair enough. Inherently, what I did was hold Obama's feet to the fire, which is why I never argued about the nature of a citizen's duty. I was doing mine...
quote:I guess my problem is the fact that like I've said before, your view gives candidates no reason to change because it only rewards good behavior in theory, not practice, or if it does, only very, very rarely. Candidates, unless someone exceptional comes along, aren't going to change unless we force them to, and just waiting around for that guy to appear is a great way to assure that nothing ever changes. If you want change, make it happen, don't wait for someone to hand it to you.
Well, I am going to try and avoid the ethical argument over motivation because that could take a few weeks, but I will say that what we argue here and now simply shows that we differ by degree. My view gives candidates reason to change rarely by your view but much more by mine, my view rarely sees exceptional people become leaders by yours but much more by mine, and all of it is simply a matter of the degree of idealism we employ. That's what I meant by talking the talk and walking the walk, I am much more idealistic than you, probably to a fault sometimes, but when I see Obama doing the things I never thought he would, he disappoints me and I have to call him on it.
quote:Compared to McCain though, I think he's doing stellar work.
LOL uh huh and compared to Battlefield Earth, Showgirls was an awesome movie.
quote:my view rarely sees exceptional people become leaders
And who WOULD become leaders in your view? Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:One last question, do you believe that if the people of this country were informed as you are, that if they did their civic duty as you want them too, that Obama would have much more of a lead in the polls?
No, but I think that Kerry would have won in '04. If McCain wins, while not optimal, I'm not going to say it's because Americans were irresponsible. But the people who elected Bush in '04 should be ashamed of themselves.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And who WOULD become leaders in your view? Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
Exceptional people would be people who *could* make it through the primary while maintaining what makes them exceptional, by changing the way in which we look at politics and campaigning and by teaching the American people how to embrace their better selves, for instance.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be difficult, but I am saying it *can* be done.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The Electoral College does nothing to protect the minority. Only twice in history have popular vote and EC vote not been the same. Both of them were razor thin margins. But the Electoral college provides no protections in Congress or the Supreme Court. The protections we rely on from the states have more to do with states' rights versus federal power than the EC, which has nothing to do with states' rights it's merely an apportionment method.
Legally no, you're right. But in philosophical terms, which was what I meant to highlight, the EC differentiates us from a popular democracy. When former U.N. delegate Michael Bolton said, "President Bush has a responsibility to the people who voted for him," that is wrong because the people did not for him at all. At the very least, it shields us as individuals from the even nastier partisan politics that would exist if each vote "actually counted." Think about it, if all it took was the majority, rather than a majority of the electoral college, the political process would be even worse than it is now. If all it took was appealing to the largest group in America, the largest age group, or the largest religious group, or whatever, instead of a majority of each state, the campaigns would divide us into national groups, and regional concerns would be ignored. We in California already know what that feels like- but see what would happen to your town hall meetings in new hampshire if the EC didn't matter. (You're a Californian right?)
Simply pointing out that the EC and the majority have never been that far out of alignment is meaningless. They have at times been in conflict, and that fact would undoubtedly change the process. Also, you're arguing for its lack of effect without having weighed its influence, even in the last 8 years. Bush would never have been president without it. There are huge implications for that fact. Now, I realize I'm arguing *for* the electoral college, and then saying it got Bush elected, which I am not for. But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion. Just as I have no patience for people who complain that a judge who exercises his right to strike down an unconstitutional law is "legislating from the bench." It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the very system that is in place to protect the majority from itself.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
You have a lot of points in there. I hope you don't mind if I address them individually.
quote:If all it took was appealing to the largest group in America, the largest age group, or the largest religious group, or whatever, instead of a majority of each state, the campaigns would divide us into national groups, and regional concerns would be ignored. We in California already know what that feels like- but see what would happen to your town hall meetings in new hampshire if the EC didn't matter. (You're a Californian right?)
I'm a Michigander, and judging from the campaign promises and the dollars being spent, my vote is probably worth more than any other state citizen's vote except for Florida and Ohio. This is really my year in many ways. Michigan is teetering on a razor thin margin towards Obama and could go either way. Both campaigns are lavishing millions of dollars and dozens of trips to southeast Michigan (and a little bit to G-Rap, sorry UP, no dice!). We're being catered to, given promises to help fix the auto industry, or to bring thouands of new renewable energy jobs here, and that trade deals will be fixed so auto workers can get the upper hand. Some of those are generic promises that work across the Rust Belt, but they keep making these major announcements and speeches in Michigan too.
What's the only reason we're getting that kind of attention, while states like Mississippi, Kentucky, Vermont, Wyoming etc are virtually ignored? The Electoral College. Why? Because your states have already been written off. My state is in play, and we're either more winnable or bigger than you, so we get all the attention and the money.
To further address what you said about demographic groups: Hello! That already happens! Dems can't win without women, Republicans can't win without men. African-Americans vote Democrat, Whites vote more Republican, Hispanics vary by region but have been trending Democrat lately. The young tend to vote Democrat when they vote at all, and the aged tend to lean Republican. But then you have cross demographics like elderly black women versus young white men who might form an unlikely coalition of voters. There are two main reasons to rebut your concern: 1. It's already the status quo, not some looming threat on the horizon. Demographic battles are the reason we have the thousands upon thousands of polls that come out all the time to let us know what the average 45 year old black woman living in Alabama with a high school level education thinks about illegal immigration. We've all already been sorted and processed, that wouldn't change with a popular vote. 2. No one is EVER going to win just by getting a single demographic. We're not Great Britain, but candidates still have to win by forming coalitions of different demographics, and different candidates will always appeal to different people, even if they are in the same party (see Obama and Clinton primary race). American politics is far, far too complex for that type of tactic to work. Besides, party politics would likely quash any such effort.
quote:Simply pointing out that the EC and the majority have never been that far out of alignment is meaningless. They have at times been in conflict, and that fact would undoubtedly change the process. Also, you're arguing for its lack of effect without having weighed its influence, even in the last 8 years. Bush would never have been president without it. There are huge implications for that fact. Now, I realize I'm arguing *for* the electoral college, and then saying it got Bush elected, which I am not for. But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion.
I wasn't really arguing for its lack of effect. I was saying that there wasn't some massive trampling of the minority at the hands of the majority. I was by far NOT saying that it has done nothing, and you just made the argument I would've made to support just that. Bush never should have been president, and we'd be a different country, and maybe a different world had he not been. Better? Worse? I don't know, but certainly not the same. The will of the people was overturned on a technicality.
quote:But I was not one of the belly-achers in 2000 when he was elected against the majority opinion. Just as I have no patience for people who complain that a judge who exercises his right to strike down an unconstitutional law is "legislating from the bench."
I WAS one of those people. I don't think your comparison is equal. Changing the constitution doesn't just take a clear majority, it involved special rules and clearly set supermajorities for just this reason, so 50.1% of the population can't run amok. There has to be a clear consensus so a supermajority come to agreement, and any lesser laws that they smaller majority try and pass can be struck down to protect the minority. Majority rule with respect for minority rights. But a presidential election is just a clear majority. All you need is one more vote than the other guy. The EC is not providing the same sort of protection that the constitution does in the case of legal matters.
quote:It represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the very system that is in place to protect the majority from itself.
Is that so? Tell me, what's the name of the elector you voted for in 2004? The name of the man or woman you're thinking about picking this year?
The main thrust of the EC when it was first created was two fold - 1. The nation was far too large and far too spread out to hold a nationwide election. It simply would have been too large an undertaking for a nation of three or four million people (though I suppose the eligibility to vote at that time was probably more like a million, if that) spread out amongst thousands of miles to hold a giant national vote. So instead they decided to choose local electors who would decide how the state would cast their electoral votes, by proxy. 2. The government deeply feared the people. To be blunt, they thought the people as a whole to be too uneducated to grasp the issues at hand, and they were expected to vote for someone who had better judgment and a better grasp of the issues than them.
Now, I think you can agree with me that logistics isn't a problem anymore. And though personally I feel that people can be too lazy in deciding who to vote for, all the information is at their fingertips if they should choose to find it, unlike 200 years ago. But even more important than that is just looking at the status quo. While as a point of process we might vote for local electors who meet at a higher level to pass on their vote to the EC, the name on the ballot is Obama, or McCain, not Fred Smith the local elector guy who will exercise his judgment for you. You vote for a guy, and expect your vote is going towards him. Everything that happens between you pulling the level (so to speak) and a guy getting sworn in, is a bunch of gobblydegook that in the 21st century just confounds the process. It provides zero protections and disenfranchises millions, to say nothing of the blatent unfairness of a system that values some voters as drastically more important than others.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: No, but I think that Kerry would have won in '04. If McCain wins, while not optimal, I'm not going to say it's because Americans were irresponsible. But the people who elected Bush in '04 should be ashamed of themselves.
And yet, go figure, we're not. I abhor Bush. I think he stinks. And if I could go back to 2004 and recast my vote, I'd still vote for him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that comes as a surprise. If Bush voters were self-aware, they wouldn't've voted for him the first time, much less the second. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
A possible "fix" (if you'll pardon the expression in a conversation about elections) to one of the problems of the EC is for states to allocate their votes proportionally rather than winner takes all.
It doesn't solve all the EC problems, but it wouldn't take a radical change to the US constitution to do it. Some states do it now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
He was paid over $30,000 a month by them to lobby against the government more strictly regulating them.
Holy guacamole. For one thing $30k a month is no small amount of money. That's a pretty darn big salary. For another thing he lobbied against the government looking closer at them while they gambled the tax-payer's risk (not money risk) on sub-prime loans.
And now he's McCain's campaign manager. This really ought to be an enormous scandal -- especially when you consider what the McCain campaign is accusing Obama of, but I feel like it'll probably fade away pretty quick :/
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope reports like this quell the smugness I see in many conservatives who tout how successful the troop surge was.
I don't see much evidence within the link you provided that would do this.
I'm not sure I buy Agnew's premise. While I'm able to accept that the surge wasn't the only factor in the decrease of violence, I don't think that the evidence provided in the link is decisive that the surge wasn't a big factor.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because the exceptional people won't make it through the primary.
I think it should be fairly obvious that both McCain and Obama are exceptional people, in their character, personal background, and achievements. That so many people seem to not notice this, I think, points directly to what's wrong with our political system. Political campaigns take exceptional people and muddy them up to the point where we can no longer recognize any exceptional qualities in them. Despite the conventional wisdom, I don't believe politicians are generally terrible people; rather we are manipulated to the point that we come to view them as terrible.
It should come as no surprise that the country keeps ending up split 50-50 over presidential elections - that's what you might expect when voters are no longer able to distinguish a good candidate from a bad candidate.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: McCain: Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation.
I don't think that comes as a surprise. If Bush voters were self-aware, they wouldn't've voted for him the first time, much less the second.
I'm completely aware. I'm glad that Bush won so that there's no way to show you what would have happened had Kerry won. It's better that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
Posts: 609 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry's biggest problem would have been a Republican Congress. I think they would have stonewalled a lot of his bigger ideas, and I don't think it's a given that the 2006 midterms would have handed the Congress over to Democrats, not with Kerry in the White House.
But it's purely speculation on everyone's part as to what would have happened.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
It gets better.
I agree with Lisa on this. And you know that doesn't happen very often.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this stage, I think it'd probably take rivers of blood and/or rains of frogs under a Kerry Administration for me to consider it worse.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, I'd be curious to know what you think would have been worse about a Kerry administration.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Happy Camper: Let me get this straight, you're saying it can't be proven that things would have been better under Kerry, and you're glad of that, because things would have been worse, and you know this. Ummm...
posted
It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At a stretch, I can construct a case that either as a Canadian or as a Chinese person, that things have been better for us with Bush rather than Kerry/Gore from a for lack of a better word, a "realpolitik" POV.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had the money and the time I would make the rounds of all the political events, and pay for others to do so nationally.
I would dress up in 19th Century farm clothes, grow a long full beard, and walk into the protest area. I'd set up a booth with a large banner stretched across the top..."Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".
I'd have fliers made up that discuss the sin of falsehood. God created reality. To deny it and replace it with your own spin is to blaspheme against God's work.
It is a much more disturbing sin than what most people of Faith are marching about. Marriage is a sacrament, but so is the truth.
And no person of faith can embrace that faith if they endeavor to befoul it with lies, innuendo, spin or misdirection. To purposefully say that the past, present or future is not what is was, is, or will be is an insult to its creator.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Strawman. I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: If I had the money and the time I would make the rounds of all the political events, and pay for others to do so nationally.
I would dress up in 19th Century farm clothes, grow a long full beard, and walk into the protest area. I'd set up a booth with a large banner stretched across the top..."Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".
I'd have fliers made up that discuss the sin of falsehood. God created reality. To deny it and replace it with your own spin is to blaspheme against God's work.
It is a much more disturbing sin than what most people of Faith are marching about. Marriage is a sacrament, but so is the truth.
And no person of faith can embrace that faith if they endeavor to befoul it with lies, innuendo, spin or misdirection. To purposefully say that the past, present or future is not what is was, is, or will be is an insult to its creator.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
quote:Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
Yes, there is a searchable database that was created (or is in the process of being created) because of legislation authored by and ushered through Congress by Obama. Still, I doubt most people know about that so it's a good way to highlight a great idea. He'd probably just put the bills on his desk on the top page of the same website used for the searchable database, but putting it on whitehouse.gov would probably get more hits.
Recent polling has the public blaming Republicans by a 2 to 1 margin for the mess we're in, and they favor Obama over McCain on the economy by 10 points.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It is a problem when people are so convinced that the "other guy" will cause disaster that they'll accept virtually anything from those in power.
Strawman. I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
I just want to say that I can totally respect this point of view, though I don't agree with the particular assignment of relative awfulness. Lisa is not saying "Kerry was bad, therefore Bush is great!" which would be a harder viewpoint to respect.
I was never that thrilled that Kerry was the democratic nominee, but I voted for him. If he'd won in 2004 and was a lousy president, I'd probably be saying the same sort of thing Lisa is now - "Yeah, he was bad, but I don't regret voting for him because I think the other guy would have been even worse."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
--j_k
I think that Obama has a good, simple idea here. It would put each bill in the spotlight so you didn't have to know what you were looking for in order to find a bill -- you just have to be interested enough in the legislation of the moment to check the whit house web page every couple of days. I've used the congressional search engine to look up bills but there are a few problems with this: First, that I have to know what I'm looking for. Second, that I never can figure out if this is the final version of the bill. Finally, that I don't read legalize. That last isn't fixed with Obama's plan, but if enough people are looking at the bill at the same time, maybe someone can help interpret them for me. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I think Bush is a disaster. I just think Kerry would have been a worse one.
Agree again.
And I don't feel like going into my reasoning either, although Samp isn't quite right. I'm willing to bet it's not what he thinks it is, though.
(Have I been sufficiently vaguely intriguing without actually saying anything? Excellent! This is the right thread for it.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though this isn't huge, Obama has pledged that as president, any bill that is placed on his desk would be posted online for five days before he would sign it.
This would certainly introduce an interesting dynamic in that bills would have to wait that much longer while citizens deliberate the contents in their completed form. It would be more difficult for legislation to rocket through the system regardless of which party is in power.
I like this idea.
Heh, it's like open source government. But aren't bills public documents already?
--j_k
I think that Obama has a good, simple idea here. It would put each bill in the spotlight so you didn't have to know what you were looking for in order to find a bill -- you just have to be interested enough in the legislation of the moment to check the whit house web page every couple of days.
Heck, just slap the site in google reader and let it tell you when there's something new to go and check out.
I agree--I think that this is a fantastic idea.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
