Putin: Ph34r Sarah Palin

[Bobalouie 0]

One more thing to add - after almost 250 years, I think it's time to dissolve the government and start over.

I am good to go with that statement.

[slim 1,530]

Well, we've already forced out the one guy who said he'd uphold the Constitution and disband most of the government we know today. There was something about no more taxes too, and not the "read my lips" kind of no new taxes the real, no more IRS = no more taxes kind of government.

Too bad we won't be seeing him anymore.

I listened to the speeches tonight on the radio. One quote I liked (other than Palin being able to field dress a moose, although I did immediately think of TR) was "he will be a President our allies can trust and our enemies will fear."

That's the kind of president I want but until they say "he will be a President that will uphold the Constitution, balance the budget, use our military for what it's intended for, restore the world's faith in our existence and purpose, etc., etc., etc." I just don't see myself wasting my time to choose the "lesser of two evils." For me, if you're choosing the lesser of two evils the system is already broken and any participation at all is just perpetuating it's existence. Until we can have choices between "good" candidates, and not just who the media deems "the two running for President" I feel I'll still do what most Americans should do on their election day, and that's spend election day sleeping in.

I'm still a big proponent of "your vote doesn't really matter."

[slim 1,530]

One more thing to add - after almost 250 years, I think it's time to dissolve the government and start over.

I am good to go with that statement.

So what would we do now?

That's the toughest question because the America the Constitution was written for is no longer the same America. Surely, loosening of the Federal govt. would only mean tightening of the State govts. and if that were to happen there would be a great disparity in terms from coast to coast. Legal things in one state would be far different from the legal activities in another. Plus, undoubtedly places like Wyoming would fall into depression when rivaled by California or Texas.

There has to be some kind of Federal govt. the only problem now is it's so big and inflated that the bubble will inevitably burst. When is the question. When is it going to happen? And when it does happen does it really matter who's president at the time?

[mox 298]

One more thing to add - after almost 250 years, I think it's time to dissolve the government and start over.

I seriously doubt you'd like the outcome. Our system of government isn't broken, it's the people that put the people into office that are broken.

I listened to the speeches tonight on the radio. One quote I liked (other than Palin being able to field dress a moose, although I did immediately think of TR) was "he will be a President our allies can trust and our enemies will fear."

I'd rather have a President our enemies respect. I'm not talking about the al Queda types--nobody is ever going to be able to reason or negotiate with those accholes, and they need to be put down post haste. I'm talking about countries like Russia and Iran, even North Korea. (and I know Russia isn't our enemy, but our governments are not exactly bff right now) You take a hard line but give them a way to save face, and all of a sudden tensions start to ease and things start happening and eventually they realize it's in their best interests to have the US as a friend. You start making with the threats and the rhetoric and it's time to raise the THREATCON to "zomg wtfbbq?!?!" Republicans think they're being "Reagen-esque" with the rhetoric and venom, but they're amateurs. Reagen knew when to put the saber away to extend a handshake.

Back on topic, I just read this morning that Palin wasn't even vetted until the day before McCain made his choice. The thought of this guy carrying the "football" is pretty disturbing.

[Chuckles 0]

The federal government has way too much money and way too much power. If you go for the founding father's argument, that is against everything most of them, especially Jefferson, stood for.

I think everyone should just not vote. Some sort of voting strike.

[Fedup 0]

The federal government has way too much money and way too much power. If you go for the founding father's argument, that is against everything most of them, especially Jefferson, stood for.

I think everyone should just not vote. Some sort of voting strike.

Yeah, right..

I did not vote last 2 elections and look what happened.

[1HappyGuy 45]

If you don't vote, then you have no right to gripe. Get involved in the system or give up complaining. It's still better than having only one person to choose from. Gee, which country just held an election for president with no opposition?

[mox 298]

Gee, which country just held an election for president with no opposition?

Canada? Goddamned Communists.

[akdiver 3]

If you don't vote, then you have no right to gripe. Get involved in the system or give up complaining. It's still better than having only one person to choose from.

I used to think this, but I no longer do.Having the option to choose between two people who will #### you and the country over at every opportunity sounds nice in theory, but in practice, you're still getting ###### over, so what difference does it make?

I no longer believe in the election process.

[akdiver 3]

I no longer have any interest in the health of the country or society in general. Like those in power, now I'm just out for myself and my own interests. Screw the country.

I no longer believe in the election process. I will happily sell my "vote" to the highest bidder.

[mox 298]

I no longer believe in the election process. I will happily sell my "vote" to the highest bidder.

You're going to have to move to a swing state to get any takers.

I actually agree with you on voting. The argument that you can't complain if you didn't vote is a logical fallacy. I wish more people would vote, but I'm also not going to negate the value of someone's opinion just because they didn't.

On the bike trail I ride to work, someone's been writing chalk messages to "Vote Nader." To which I immediately thought "yeah, if you want to throw your vote away." And then it occurred to me that the real reason voting for Nader is a waste is because it's tackling the problem from the wrong end. Third parties aren't built from national politics, they're built from local politics. If you want a third party to take hold in this country, don't vote Nader for President, vote for a third party candidate for City Dog Catcher. Vote third party City Council. It's just stupid and a waste of time and money to try to make change from the top down, and a run for national election is just a waste of time and money that could be much better spent at the local level.

[akdiver 3]

And then it occurred to me that the real reason voting for Nader is a waste is because it's tackling the problem from the wrong end. Third parties aren't built from national politics, they're built from local politics. If you want a third party to take hold in this country, don't vote Nader for President, vote for a third party candidate for City Dog Catcher. Vote third party City Council. It's just stupid and a waste of time and money to try to make change from the top down, and a run for national election is just a waste of time and money that could be much better spent at the local level.

Yeah, see, to me, this is a fallacy, for several reasons.

a). As long as people take the view that voting on a 3rd party is throwing your vote away because they will never win, you're going to continue to be stuck with a 2 party system.

B). It assumes that just because you vote for a candidate that didn't win (or has "no chance" of winning), your vote is thrown away. That's just not true, for a couple of reasons. Is voting for the winning candidate really making your vote count if the winning candidate violates your entire belief system and everything you stand for? Is voting for the popular guy really making your vote count, since even if you didn't vote, the popular guy would have still won, and by a large margin?

I think the entire system needs to be completely re-vamped as follows:

The electoral college system remains in place, but what changes is how the votes work. The change is as follows:

a). Each voter ranks four candidates in order of preference. High preference gets a 1, low preference gets a 4.

B). Tally up the votes. Assign positions as follows:

- lowest total: assigned as president

- second lowest total: assigned as vice president

- third lowest total: assigned as speaker of the house

- fourth lowest total: assigned as senate pro tempore

This will do wonders to reduce party politics and put an end to a lot of the bullshit that goes on.

Now - here is the kicker. Every third election (12 years), a vote is taken to assign the chief justice of the supreme court. There are five votes that count. Each of the office holders mentioned above get one vote. The 5th vote goes to the electoral college.

Of course, I would also get rid of most of the federal government - whole departments. Merge some departments into others, get rid of most federal law enforcement (how many ###### federal law enforcement agencies do we need anyway?), replace the national income tax with a national sales tax, and implement revenue sharing amongst the states (sort of like Canada and the NFL do it). The federal govt's role would be limited as per the constitution - national defense and other real national issues. Leave the states to do as they will.

[mox 298]

Yeah, see, to me, this is a fallacy, for several reasons.

a). As long as people take the view that voting on a 3rd party is throwing your vote away because they will never win, you're going to continue to be stuck with a 2 party system.

I don't think so. The way people are doing it right now is what I think assures a 2-party system. Donating time and money to a Nader campaign results in zero accomplishments. No bill will ever be signed into law by a Nader administration. I mean, by all means, vote your conscience, even if that means voting for someone you know won't win. I don't say that crassly either, I mean it. But if you're going to donate money or time (like the sidewalk chalkers did), then do it at the local level. Get that dog catcher or city counsel person elected, and build a base of support. That's the only way you will ever see a 3rd party in the oval office. Perot was the exception that proves the rule, and a lot of what propelled him was his own personal fortune and a bizarre cult of personality. It's unlikely to happen again.

I think the entire system needs to be completely re-vamped as follows:

Wow...you've put a lot of thought into this. I don't think it would pass Constitutional muster, but you and I both definitely agree on the role of the Federal government. It has way too much power and it's time to give that power back to the states as the founders envisioned.

[akdiver 3]

Wow...you've put a lot of thought into this. I don't think it would pass Constitutional muster

As I've said, after 250 years, it's time to start over (:

What I failed to point out in the previous post is that the electors should be appointed by the governments of their respective states. Also, the 17th amendment should be abolished, so that senators are appointed by the governments of their respective states too.

Under this system, the only thing that "the people" vote for are members of the house of representatives, and their own state/local government. This puts a lot more emphasis on involvement at the state level and less at the national level. States are representing their own interests and getting less involved in ####### that doesn't involve them.

[mox 298]

Well Palin's speech tonight squashed any lingering fears I might have that she could save the McCain campaign after all. If you are already inclined to vote for McCain, this speech was tailor made for you. It was tailor made for the base, and in that regard she was the picture of perfection. But what the speech failed to do was appeal to swing voters. The attacks on Obama were vicious (at one time she actually mocked his social work in Chicago's South side) and partisan, which will certainly not garner the votes of undecideds. And I can't help but think that if she was trying to court the Hillary camp, she failed at that too. Hillary could be snide and condescending, but she never crossed the line into outright vicious mockery. Palin did, and I think it was a mistake. I think they've given up on the swing vote actually, and are going to hope the newly energized base will do it for them. They will be wrong.

Honestly I'd like for nothing more than to see Biden chew her up and spit her out like I know he can, but he won't. He'll give her a nice thumping during the debate, but he needs to be careful to let her and McCain have all the rope they need to finish the job themselves. McCain is running this campaign like it's 2004 again, but things have changed a lot over the last 4 years. I think taking the high road is going to win this race.