BF2S Forums Palin Edging to 2012 Run, Says She's Willing to 'Give It a Shot'

Dilbert_X wrote:

Preference voting is fine, providing they aren't transferable by the candidate - thats the problem.

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Thanks to having a reasonable constitution and political system.

Well, it's more because you have preferences and a parliamentary system.

While I can definitely see the worth of having a parliament over a Congress, the preference voting system seems to overvalue third parties.

Instant Runoff Voting (a similar system) is more straightforward and evenhanded about representation.  Preferences seems to give a little too much to less popular candidates -- and thus, you get nuts like Fielding in office.

Umm, the only difference I see is in Australia is you have to rank all the candidates.

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Preference voting is fine, providing they aren't transferable by the candidate - thats the problem.

Why is that even part of the system?  It just seems so crazy.

It's only used in the senate, and it's done for 2 main reason.
1. People are lazy and could not be bothered to fill in (or know who are) the 80++ candidates running in order personal preference, not to mention the time it would take to count going through 80+ rounds of preferences where they are all different.
2. There are multiple candidates from the same party and they want to distribute the party votes most effectively.

But also keep in mind, there is always the option to fill out all the preferences in the order you see fit, only 95% of the people don't take that option.

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

It's only used in the senate, and it's done for 2 main reason.
1. People are lazy and could not be bothered to fill in (or know who are) the 80++ candidates running in order personal preference, not to mention the time it would take to count going through 80+ rounds of preferences where they are all different.
2. There are multiple candidates from the same party and they want to distribute the party votes most effectively.

But also keep in mind, there is always the option to fill out all the preferences in the order you see fit, only 95% of the people don't take that option.

Any system that results in putting someone like Fielding into office seems like a bad idea IMHO.

Then again the American senate seems to house its fair amount of dropkicks as well

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-09-18 22:57:02)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

Then again the American senate seems to house its fair amount of dropkicks as well

Oh don't get me wrong...   We've got plenty of nuts as well.  However, I would suggest most of the reason for that here is because our proportion of nuts among the electorate seems to be higher.

System-wise, I think our elections are fairly sound -- with the exception of the Electoral College.  That needs to get dumped.

You don't like minority majority Presidents?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You don't like minority majority Presidents?

Nope...  I think we should either have a directly elected President or a parliament with an indirectly elected PM.

This halfway shit ain't working.

It would have to be indirectly elected. If you held a direct election without an electoral college no one would campaign outside of the major cities. We'd end up with a whole lot of disenfranchised people with guns.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It would have to be indirectly elected. If you held a direct election without an electoral college no one would campaign outside of the major cities. We'd end up with a whole lot of disenfranchised people with guns.

Well, I've often thought maybe we should be 3 countries.  The West Coast, the East Coast, and Flyover Land.    That would solve that issue.

Yeah, fantastic, spin off the bread belt that feeds us.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Yeah, fantastic, spin off the bread belt that feeds us.

When looking at federal receipts, they are a net financial loss.

When looking at my belly, they're a net gain. Are you sure you're not from Manhattan? You have the same prejudices as the neurotic Jews that populate that island.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

When looking at my belly, they're a net gain. Are you sure you're not from Manhattan? You have the same prejudices as the neurotic Jews that populate that island.

Nope...  but I am surrounded by rural culture, so it can grate on the nerves sometimes.

Go drink some white lightning, let loose a rebel yell and do some fire jumping. I don't, however, condone incest.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Nope...  but I am surrounded by rural culture, so it can grate on the nerves sometimes.

Go drink some white lightning, let loose a rebel yell and do some fire jumping. I don't, however, condone incest.

LOL...  I have to admit...  I have a number of friends and coworkers that could be considered redneck, and many of them are honest, trustworthy people.

I just have to rag on them sometimes.  I did go to a "white trash" party recently though.  That was pretty fun.

Harmor wrote:

When Reagan lowered taxes in the early 80s the revenue to the Government doubled.  The problem we had was that the Democrats (i.e. Tip O'neal and friends), spent faster than we generated in taxes.

JohnG@lt wrote:

The tax cuts in the 80s weren't the prime mover in the economy, Michael Milken and Lewis Ranieri pushed the 80s economy. Warren Buffett pushed the 80s. High Yield Bonds (Junk Bonds) fueled the 80s, not tax cuts.

Tax cuts spurred economic growth.  Only a small portion of the economy is regulated by the stock market.  Much of the conomy is by consumer spending (todays is 70% of our economy).

JohnG@lt wrote:

This leads into point #2. Having a strong military leads to its use overseas. Why do we need a military larger than what is necessary to defend our borders? Why should we waste money on something we'll never get a return on?

We spend so much money on the military so we don't have to use it.  Basically we are so military advanced to a potential enemy that they don't even try to mess with us.  The U.S.S.R. at the time was very strong and had influnce around the world so we had to have an even strong military.

The ramp up in military spending basically crippled the U.S.S.R. economy as they tried under Communism to keep up and eventually lead to the downfall of the U.S.S.R.

You know countries in Europe and Japan are able to have a weak militaries (Japan can't), because we protect them and thus is a primary reason why they can spend so much on Socialism.  Recall all those missiles we installed that Russia is so pissed about?  You can't do that if you have a weak military.

JohnG@lt wrote:

It's certainly not an investment. The only people that benefit are the defense industry who live off the government tit and suck away far more than welfare moms.

If you live in fear that your country can easily be invaded then what kind of life can you live?  A weak defense didn't help you keep friendly neighbors who wanted to take you over?  We only need to give as an example Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, and France.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Point #3: You don't even know what limited government is.

Limited government is a government that doesn't have overreaching laws and regulations beyond what is necessary to keep us safe and opperating efficiently.  Anything more is just social engineering (see our tax code for an example of that).

JohnG@lt wrote:

You want to keep a strong military, which is part of the government and necessarily makes it bigger. You want to expand government by turning it into a ministry.

I think you're misunderstanding about my comment about Military Outreach Ministry.  I don't ant to turn the military into a church...I just will support non-demoninational charities that serve military families.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Point #4: You want low taxes, but again, you want a strong military.

Yes and yes.  Lowering taxes not only stimulates the economy but it also generates more money to the government in taxes, which always puzzled me why Liberials didn't want more money going to the government?

JohnG@lt wrote:

What should be cut? Are you going to say 'oh, sorry, you paid into Medicare and Social Security all your life but we're going to cut the program now, worry about your own retirement'. Good luck winning on that platform.

You're right about that because everyone since the `New Deal` was promised this money when they retire.  What we need to do is wheen people off this pozie scheme, Social Security, like this:

1) Each year for the next 10 years people can opt 10% of what they pay now into a savings account of Treasury bills or into their 401k.
2) People 54-64 can write off their payments as a tax credit once they turn 65 or take a graduated scale less when they do turn 65.  I.e. 64 year olds would get 90% when then turn 65.  63 year olds get 80% etc...
3) People 65+ can instead take their payments as a tax credit against their income or any part of that (i.e. somoene only make $5,000 from interest income could decide to reduce their SSI by $5,000 that year so they pay $0 in taxes, but get $5,000 less in SSI).

As for Medicare we need to take healthcare out of the employeers' hands and put it back into ours.  We need to make health insurance like car insurance, portable, and easy to get instead of fining people who don't buy it.

We need to limit Medicare to those truely needy.

Obamacare is actually doing a good thing with Medicare by reducing payments to Doctors.  In some parts of the country Hospitals won't even take Medicare.


SSI and Medicare basically came about because a shift in our society where its now the Governemnts role to take care of people instead of your immediate family.  Before all these programs, shock, people helped their parents and grandparents out.  We didn't need to have 2 incomes either just to get by.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Oh, I know, you'll cut the pork barrel spending that makes up less than 1% of the budget. Always a good target.

Discretionary spending is more than 1% of the budget.  I think you're talking about earmarks?  That's where Politians bribe other Politians with our money.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Government employee unions shouldn't be made illegal, they should be unsponsored by the government. Big difference. You can't outlaw unions, what would be the charge? Are you going to ban people from talking around the water cooler too? They might be subversives or planning a strategy to get their salaries raised. Can't have that. No. I don't like unions but banning them outright is as stupid as killing SS and Medicare.

Did you know you are required to pay union dues even if you're not in the union?  That's extortion and thus the reason why I think public employee unions are illegal.

JohnG@lt wrote:

School choice. Cool. Not very conservative of you though. Generally, people move into a town because they like the school district. Please grant school choice though, I'll move into a shitty school district with lower property taxes and send my kids to the better school. Win/win for me.

Assuming that school has room in their school and that your kid isn't disruptive then sure you as a parent should have a choice where your kid goes to school.  Actually I think you should also get a voucher equal to 1/2 the money spent per pupil that you can use to put your kid into a private school.