Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The most effective goverment?; What is the best way to manage things?
Topic Started: Oct 4 2006, 08:39 PM (1,407 Views)
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kalkin
Oct 9 2006, 01:03 PM
Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
I'm a believer in the old fashion Constitutional Republic.

You need a Constitution that cannot be easily changed except by a super majority working for a long period of time to establish solid predictible boundaries on government power that respect the liberties of the people. Then you have the people elect Representatives, perhaps all directly, or perhaps some indirectly (like the state legislatures used to elect senators) to legislate within the boundaries of the Constitution according, roughly, to the will of the majority of the moment. In this way the rights of the minorty can be secured, the government is made up of interested and hopefully more professional leaders, and the will of the majority sets the tone for the country's instant management.


In case you haven't noticed that kind of change is precisely what the Bush faction is doing as we speak. Furthermore the republican party has been engaged in this sort of groundwork for over two decades. They lured the democratic party into this cementing secured support areas thingy where there are only a few contested states in every election, while most states always side with one party. Since the republicans have more secured states, they always have the advantage. Then came the Bush faction that took advantage of this process and established their regime. Did I mention yet that the companies that maintain, fix and tune the voting machines are owned by members of the republican party?

The bottom line is: Corrupting a democracy might be a task that requires more patience than corrupting a dictator, but once it's corrupt it stays that way until there is a revolution or it gets conquered. A corrupt dictator on the other hand can be taken care of by one bullet. The problem is that if you have a group of couple hundred people there are corrupt people around and if they got to act within a faceless organization like congress they can maintain their position and unless they get caught they have an advantage at every election. In the meantime some of the other representatives get replaced by more corrupt people, who also stay long in politics due to their advantage over honest people. The cycle continues with corrupt people gaining ground at every election. Then they form an organization within organization to protect their own asses from one another and from the risk of getting punished in case they get caught. Once the corrupted people are the majority the next logical step is to start changing the constitution to allow them to enhance their activities and diminish risks. On my opinion this is exactly what has happened during the last two decades and this progress has culminated to the era of the Bush faction. The one to come after him will finish the job and turn USA into a complete banana republic.

I find your conspiracy theory a little perplexing considering the history of the last sixty years. You are aware, are you not, that the Republicans only gained control of the executive and legislature consecutively during the last four years (since the senate was tied for the first two years of Bush's administration). I'm not sure how they managed to pull of a massive conspiracy that apparently involves wide spread election fixing when they've only controled the federal governmet for such a scant period of time. It becomes even more befuddling when you recall that the elections are administered by the states. I don't know how it is where you vote, but where I vote people mark their paper ballots with simple pens. Those ballots are counted by a machine run by local citizens of both parties acting as judges. There is a team of over 100 lawyers supplied by the local law school that have spotters on hand at many voting places and will send out an attorney free of charge if there is any issue to take a deposition on the spot. Are all these people colluding with Bush?

Any system of government can be corrupted if the people are not vigilent, but a Constitutional Republic has proven itself to be one of the least susceptible because it is difficult to do anything quickly or to do anything at all if it falls outside the bounds of the Constitution. The US has had a problem with creeping unconstitutional changes to the government's power, but it didn't start under Bush, but instead many more decades ago, most prominantly under FDR who literally tried to pack the Supreme Court with his cronies to get unconstitutional legislation approved. Bush hasn't done the Constitution any favors with measures like campaign finance reform and the expansion of the welfare state, but his activities are far from the sudden conspiracy to destroy the Constitution like your characterizatioon suggests.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tech Junkie
Member Avatar
Styx Ferryman
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Confused Query: Isn't democracy of any sort a dictatorship of the fastest talker? Further, as this redefines all democracies as dictatorships, does this not mean that benevolent democracies are benevolent dictatorships? Therefore, are those supporting benevolent dictatorships and deriding democracy not contradicting themselves.

Rhetorical Question: Then again, doesn't everyone contradict themselves in discussions of politics, philosophy, or similar matters?

Clarifying Statement: In mentioning direct democracy, I was simply using Athens as an example. I was not stating that any government should mirror that one in it's entirety. Rather, the spirit of such should be carried on, the idea of an educated populace deciding what's best for itself.

Depressed Statement: However, this would require an educated populace, and one would be hard pressed to find that anywhere save a few shining points such as Japan. A saddening truth, to be sure.

Hopeful Addendum: However, there's always the chance of such a populace arrising somewhere with just the right mentality to make such a system work again.

Amused Musing: I wonder how many people will recognize this speech pattern. B)
May the blessing of Our Lady of the Workshop be upon you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kalkin
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie wrote:
Quote:
 
Confused Query: Isn't democracy of any sort a dictatorship of the fastest talker? Further, as this redefines all democracies as dictatorships, does this not mean that benevolent democracies are benevolent dictatorships? Therefore, are those supporting benevolent dictatorships and deriding democracy not contradicting themselves.

No, it is not. In direct democracy the fast talker convinces the majority of the people. In a representative democracy only the parliament. He has a lot less influence on the people. As such the people can always become fed with the parliament and overthrow it without the fast talker being able to stop it.

Quote:
 
Rhetorical Question: Then again, doesn't everyone contradict themselves in discussions of politics, philosophy, or similar matters?

That is sofism and I don't do that. I do my best not to contradict myself. I'm a sloppy speaker/writer so I have my hands full correcting contradictions that I APPEAR to be making. If I did it for real I'd get so confused I'd have to stop writing alltogether.

Quote:
 
Clarifying Statement: In mentioning direct democracy, I was simply using Athens as an example. I was not stating that any government should mirror that one in it's entirety. Rather, the spirit of such should be carried on, the idea of an educated populace deciding what's best for itself.

Then switch your example to Roussaeus home city. It existed in 18th century Western Europe and had direct democracy. I don't like democracy. Oh, right. I remembered a third reason why it doesn't work. Democracy assumes that the people who run it are just as idealistic and well meaning as the people who created it. If it isn't so the democracy is corrupted (as it usually isn't. This sums up nicely my earlier rant about the process that causes democracy to fail.).

Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
I find your conspiracy theory a little perplexing considering the history of the last sixty years. You are aware, are you not, that the Republicans only gained control of the executive and legislature consecutively during the last four years (since the senate was tied for the first two years of Bush's administration).

You are missing the point. The point is that I explained how a democracy becomes corrupted WITHOUT a conspiracy. It just happens without any kind of purposeful conspiracy from the activities of individuals who do the representing, while a percentige of them is rotten. This development shows how republican activities are bearing their fruit. And culminating to Bush faction era. Diminishing the amount of contested states they have the advantage. That means democrats can still get majority, but it requires them to win 75% of the contested states on every election. Republicans have to do some major screwups before they lose.

Quote:
 
I'm not sure how they managed to pull of a massive conspiracy that apparently involves wide spread election fixing when they've only controled the federal governmet for such a scant period of time.

I said, it's not a conspiracy, it's a consensus. And fixing an election doesn't have to happen in every state, just in contested states. And it doesn't require control to pull of, just involment, which has been there for decades.

Quote:
 
I don't know how it is where you vote, but where I vote people mark their paper ballots with simple pens. Those ballots are counted by a machine run by local citizens of both parties acting as judges. There is a team of over 100 lawyers supplied by the local law school that have spotters on hand at many voting places and will send out an attorney free of charge if there is any issue to take a deposition on the spot. Are all these people colluding with Bush?

It doesn't require lots of people to know about it. Just a dozen or so people that maintain election machines will do. A little 'mistake' while adjusting the settings is all that's needed. Obviously we are talking of those places where voting doesn't include ballots, just machines. In America the practises of electing vary wildly and there're over 100 different practises in different areas. Electronic voting machines which have no ballots to check have spread widely during the last decade and the companies that maintain them are in control of people who support republicans. I read that from a newspaper article. The point I'm making that with all the contested states being very few and voting practises varying chaotically. You DON'T need a big conspiracy to rig an election. I claim that a dozen well placed people COULD do it and that they ARE in the right places. I claim that if they refraimed from doing a rigged election for some incomprehensible reason, I'd be very surprised.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 

Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
I find your conspiracy theory a little perplexing considering the history of the last sixty years. You are aware, are you not, that the Republicans only gained control of the executive and legislature consecutively during the last four years (since the senate was tied for the first two years of Bush's administration).

You are missing the point. The point is that I explained how a democracy becomes corrupted WITHOUT a conspiracy. It just happens without any kind of purposeful conspiracy from the activities of individuals who do the representing, while a percentige of them is rotten. This development shows how republican activities are bearing their fruit. And culminating to Bush faction era. Diminishing the amount of contested states they have the advantage. That means democrats can still get majority, but it requires them to win 75% of the contested states on every election. Republicans have to do some major screwups before they lose.


I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was relevant to discussing your conspiracy theory. Your point also makes little sense because any type of government can come corrupted. I also want to note that democracy is not synonymous with constitutional republic.
Democrats have exerted far more control over the government for far longer and engaged in known election fraud on a much wider scale than the Republicans ever have. The Democrats controlled the executive, legislature with veto proof majorities, the Supreme Court, and the majority of the states back during much of FDR's time in office. Voting fraud in Chicago was widespread and probably allowed Kennedy to beat Nixon. We had voting fraud in Democrat districts during the last two elections as well with them busing in voters, holding polls open past closing time, etc in cities like St. Louis. I'm sure Republicans have their black marks too, but the point is that Democrats are losing elections because the people are not voting for them, not because they're being cheated out of it. If anything, they're the bigger abusers.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I'm not sure how they managed to pull of a massive conspiracy that apparently involves wide spread election fixing when they've only controled the federal governmet for such a scant period of time.

I said, it's not a conspiracy, it's a consensus. And fixing an election doesn't have to happen in every state, just in contested states. And it doesn't require control to pull of, just involment, which has been there for decades.


So you're upset because a concensus of the people have decided to vote Republican? That clever Republicans are pulling the wool over Democrat election officials in all these contested states? Since we're off in the fairyland of groundless speculation maybe we should explore the idea that Democrats are cheating instead of Republicans, but they are losing by so much in the polls that they just can't pull it off except in the contested states. No one except a few people wearing tin hats are going to believe such things.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I don't know how it is where you vote, but where I vote people mark their paper ballots with simple pens. Those ballots are counted by a machine run by local citizens of both parties acting as judges. There is a team of over 100 lawyers supplied by the local law school that have spotters on hand at many voting places and will send out an attorney free of charge if there is any issue to take a deposition on the spot. Are all these people colluding with Bush?

It doesn't require lots of people to know about it. Just a dozen or so people that maintain election machines will do. A little 'mistake' while adjusting the settings is all that's needed. Obviously we are talking of those places where voting doesn't include ballots, just machines. In America the practises of electing vary wildly and there're over 100 different practises in different areas. Electronic voting machines which have no ballots to check have spread widely during the last decade and the companies that maintain them are in control of people who support republicans. I read that from a newspaper article. The point I'm making that with all the contested states being very few and voting practises varying chaotically. You DON'T need a big conspiracy to rig an election. I claim that a dozen well placed people COULD do it and that they ARE in the right places. I claim that if they refraimed from doing a rigged election for some incomprehensible reason, I'd be very surprised.


How would a dozen people maintaining a simple counting machine accomplish a massive fraud like that? Do you honestly think that only partisans check those settings instead of several different election officials who are handpicked by both parties to look after their interests? Many of those machines produce paper receipts that can be used to double check if an issue arises. Why would states like California, for example, which is typically under heavy Democrat control these days, especially in the legislature where such things are decided, use these devices if they are just Republican trojan horses? Its amazing that all these Democrat legislatures and election officials are being duped, but somehow you pieced together the plot and armed with wild speculation is now ready to inform the world. You can claim anything, but you haven't proved it or even shown plausibly how such a thing could be done. Look at places where election fraud took place historically and you'll notice right away it took a lot more than a dozen people. Even with electronic voting machines it still would, unless you seriously think that they let just anyone go in and monkey with them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kalkin
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was relevant to discussing your conspiracy theory. Your point also makes little sense because any type of government can come corrupted.

Now you are missing my other point. A corrupt dictator can be removed by one bullet, while correcting a corrupt democracy requires a lot more effort, maybe even the total destruction of the state in question.

Edited by Kalkin, Sep 2 2011, 01:39 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
I didn't miss your point, I just didn't think it was relevant to discussing your conspiracy theory. Your point also makes little sense because any type of government can come corrupted.

Now you are missing my other point. A corrupt dictator can be removed by one bullet, while correcting a corrupt democracy requires a lot more effort, maybe even the total destruction of the state in question.


You've got to be kidding me. You use the phase 'corrupt dictator' like there is any other kind of dictator out there. There isn't. Dictatorships are overwhelmingly corrupt to the point that it is meaningless to speculate about the 'philosopher king' style of single authority. Killing one tyrant is meaningless when you put another man into absolute power behind him, thus creating yet another tyrant. Furthermore, the notion that you can just take a bullet to an evil dictator is exceedingly problematic in and of itself. Who decides what is an evil dictator? The people getting stepped on or the one's helping the dictator do the stepping? I thought the point of this thread was to speculate on the best form of government in the real world, not in some kind of pie in the sky fantasy.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Democrats have exerted far more control over the government for far longer and engaged in known election fraud on a much wider scale than the Republicans ever have. The Democrats controlled the executive, legislature with veto proof majorities, the Supreme Court, and the majority of the states back during much of FDR's time in office. Voting fraud in Chicago was widespread and probably allowed Kennedy to beat Nixon. We had voting fraud in Democrat districts during the last two elections as well with them busing in voters, holding polls open past closing time, etc in cities like St. Louis. I'm sure Republicans have their black marks too, but the point is that Democrats are losing elections because the people are not voting for them, not because they're being cheated out of it. If anything, they're the bigger abusers.

I never limited corruption exclusively to republicans. You could have noticed that if you had read my earlier posts. Furthermore if you had read my posts you could have noticed the notion, where I mentioned that crooked politicians have been around since the first election. That's over 200 years. Even further I mentioned the political party largely irrelevant since the percentages of crooked politicians are pretty much the same. Current republican coup is just the obvious example that I have noticed. Corruption in no way excludes democrats.


Now the Republicans are trying to engage in a coup? Are you always this loose with terminology? Or is a swift change in government now inclusive with mutli-decade long subtle tampering with marginal elections?
You may have never explicitly limited corruption to Republicans, but I've only ever seen you mention them in your posts up until now. Saying something abstract like there have always been crooked politicians is a far cry from accusing Republicans writ large of staging a coup over a period of two decades by way of massive election fraud. Of the proven corruption, historically, the vast majority has been in big city machines run by Democrats. Corruption doesn't just include Democrats, as if there are always a few bad apples in each barrel, corruption was synonymous with Democrat in places like Chicago.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
So you're upset because a concensus of the people have decided to vote Republican? That clever Republicans are pulling the wool over Democrat election officials in all these contested states? Since we're off in the fairyland of groundless speculation maybe we should explore the idea that Democrats are cheating instead of Republicans, but they are losing by so much in the polls that they just can't pull it off except in the contested states. No one except a few people wearing tin hats are going to believe such things.

1. I don't get upset.
2. Republicans aren't clever. They just have a plan. Otherwise they are just the same kind of morons as democrats.
3. The consensus is among the corrupt representatives to independently from one another to support a common cause to cover their own asses. Screw the people, they have no part in this.
4. Repuclicans lured democrats into this secure states contest. I'm quite sure the democrats who went along with it thinking they were the clever ones.


You're obviosly upset on some level if you felt the need to address it as your first point. Anyway, let me get this straight. The Republicans aren't clever, but they've managed to pull off massive electorial fraud under the noses of the entire nation, including Democrat polling officials, attorney's, numerous state secretaries of election, etc for decades? What would you call clever if not that? I'd call it dilusional paranoia actually.
The Republicans didn't "lure" the Democrats into anything and the "secure states contest" as you phrase it isn't a new phenonem. State legislatures draw up the districts for House of Representatives seats. Those legislatures are controlled by one partisan group or another. Unsurprisingly those partisans draw the districts in ways that benefit their parties. When the Democrats were in control they did it and it took sixty years for the Republicans to wrest back control at least in part because of it, though the big reason was because the people simply voted that way.
Now the demographics have shifted and the people want Republicans in control for a change. People also tend to like their incumbant representatives, Republican or Democrat, and unsurprisingly the House changes very little, very slowly. It isn't new, its the way its always been. The only difference is that now when Republicans are benefitting you see a conspiracy and when the Democrats benefitted for sixty years you apparently saw nothing.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
How would a dozen people maintaining a simple counting machine accomplish a massive fraud like that? Do you honestly think that only partisans check those settings instead of several different election officials who are handpicked by both parties to look after their interests? Many of those machines produce paper receipts that can be used to double check if an issue arises. Why would states like California, for example, which is typically under heavy Democrat control these days, especially in the legislature where such things are decided, use these devices if they are just Republican trojan horses?

A. 'When great forces hang in balance, the one in control if the one who knows where to put his thumb.' Freely quoted from Terry Pratchett.
B. It isn't massive. It's small. It needs to happen only in contested states and only in enough counties to ensure victory. Like I said, republicans only need to win only 25% of contested states. If they do it well, they might need maybe couple of thousand votes extra to turn a small state. That's easy to miss among millions of votes. Just remember, what the difference was in Florida 2000, that wasn't massive. It'd be rather easy to arrange in a multimillion people state.
C. California is not a contested state, so screw it. No voting machines to them.
D. Paper receipts can be used if an issue rose, but if the vote riggers don't get stupid, the issue doesn't rise. Probably there would be some diversion in some other county or state to divert the public interest. Voter manipulation became a public issue in Ohio 2004 and I don't think that was caused by any kind of conspirators. Repeating such an event would surely gather nations interest and allow dirtier play elsewhere away from spotlight.


I don't think you understand the size of the undertaking that you are contemplating here. Pick any contested state you want. Missouri for example, the iconic bellweather of the nation. Its rural areas all vote overwhelmingly Republican, mostly over 70% concentration or higher. The two main cities, Kansas City and St. Louis on the other hand vote overwhelming Democratic. How would the Republicans go about stealing this state for Jim Talent in his tight race with challenger McCaskill? Missouri will only certify ballots using paper receipts and the bulk of the voting apparatus, especially in the rural areas, use paper ballots outright. With the bulk of the Republican votes coming from precincts with small numbers of registered voters, voters who already mostly vote Republican, it is going to take a huge conspiracy spanning the entire state to rig the tens of thousands of votes necessary to swing an election in a state with 4.1 million registered voters. I suppose it would be easier to throw in some votes in a county like St. Louis county with its over three quarters of a million voters, but its heavily Democrat with a history of cheating for the Democrats if any cheating occurs, not the Republicans.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/registered....asp?rvmID=0004

You said that California isn't a contested state, but there are probably contested House seats or at least potential contested seats if enough fraud were committed. California is the state that elected Ronald Reagan governor twice in a row after all. Of course shifts in demographics have turned the state into a Democrat stronghold, but there are two open seats that were held by Republicans.

Then, the grand crowning bout of paranoia, no matter how safeguarded the process is the Republicans will simply divert attention and all the local Democrats who live and breath their election will forget to raise the issue. They'll all be glued to the TV watching CNN instead of paying attention to the voting machines, right?

I'm sorry, but your scenario just doesn't make any sense. There just isn't any plausible way that such a large fraud, and yes it is too large to be pulled off by twenty guys in a few polling places, would go undiscovered for two decades. Even more devistating to your theory is the overwhelming lack of proof. Its possible that our government was taken over by space aliens in the 1950s, but without proof its just material to line your tin hat with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tech Junkie
Oct 10 2006, 10:28 AM
Depressed Statement: However, this would require an educated populace, and one would be hard pressed to find that anywhere save a few shining points such as Japan. A saddening truth, to be sure.

Japan? Educated?!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zer0
Member Avatar
LOEV 2 KONSOLE
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
严加华
Oct 10 2006, 06:04 PM
Tech Junkie
Oct 10 2006, 10:28 AM
Depressed Statement: However, this would require an educated populace, and one would be hard pressed to find that anywhere save a few shining points such as Japan. A saddening truth, to be sure.

Japan? Educated?!

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You beat me to it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kalkin
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]
Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
You've got to be kidding me. You use the phase 'corrupt dictator' like there is any other kind of dictator out there. There isn't. Dictatorships are overwhelmingly corrupt to the point that it is meaningless to speculate about the 'philosopher king' style of single authority.

No, it's not. Corruption is a human trait caused by flawed cultural elements. Once you take a homo sapiens and install him a different, less flawed cultural elements, you get a creature less corrupt (I'm not sure what to call that new creature, though. That creature might not fit a tight definition of a human.). Anyway it is impossible to say how such a creature would perform, since there has never been one on a throne.
Edited by Kalkin, Sep 2 2011, 01:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tom Joad
Member Avatar
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kalkin
Oct 11 2006, 01:25 AM
You don't understand how easy it is for the republicans to win. There are about 10 contested states. If the republicans can get 25% of them for themselves, they have majority. Since contested states are contested, with around 50% onfor both parties, the republicans would have to lose ground 25% before they need to cheat even one vote. When you add there the possibility of a possible fraud of say 20000 votes in a critical zone losing becames very unlikely. There are about 50 million people in the contested states. Let's say it's around 15 million voters, half of which cast votes. That's 7,5 million votes. A fraud with 20000 votes is so small it fits in the margin of error. You'd have to have some very bad luck to be noticed.

Well, how'd you know. You have distorted my arguments at every turn so badly that I don't even recognise them. Frankly, I don't think I need to say anything. You started a debate of your own three posts ago in which I have had no part. You have taken my arguments and created your own twisted versions of them, which you then have no trouble refuting. Unfortunately that is the 'straw man'-logical fallacy - one of the 10 great no-nos of debating. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The guy with the tin hat is a figment or your own imagination and all the incomprihensible stuff it has said is from your own mouth with a few out-of-context words of mine added in the mix.

Well that is how a democracy works. It is not always fair. If Republicans control most of the states then they should win. It is due to a good campaign by the Republicans or a bad campaign by the Dems (probably the latter).

Don't put down the straw man. He is one of the best tricks in the bag. Notice how EVERYBODY thinks Dubya has an IQ of 4, but in actuality he was smart enough to win a presidential election.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Falcon
Member Avatar
Apocalyptic Usher
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Falcon wrote:
Quote:
 
You've got to be kidding me. You use the phase 'corrupt dictator' like there is any other kind of dictator out there. There isn't. Dictatorships are overwhelmingly corrupt to the point that it is meaningless to speculate about the 'philosopher king' style of single authority.

No, it's not. Corruption is a human trait caused by flawed cultural elements. Once you take a homo sapiens and install him a different, less flawed cultural elements, you get a creature less corrupt (I'm not sure what to call that new creature, though. That creature might not fit a tight definition of a human.). Anyway it is impossible to say how such a creature would perform, since there has never been one on a throne.


Which goes back to my point that its meaningless to speculate on some mythical creature that has not been, nor perhaps ever could be created. You're coming at this from a purely theoretical standpoint while I'm coming at it from a historical standpoint. When you devise some practical way to create this perfect culture let me know. We probably won't need any ruler then, since with the proper culture men can be angels, right?

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Now the Republicans are trying to engage in a coup? Are you always this loose with terminology?

English is my second language. If you have a better word for a democracy being switched with an oligarchy of greedy and ruthless people backed by oil- and weapons industry lobbiests then tell me.


I don't agree with your premise that America can be characterized by an oligarchy of oil and weapons industry backed persons. Of course, an oligarchy is a different form of government from a democracy.
FYI, America is a Constitutional Republic, though I admit it has been greatly democratized in the last hundred years or so.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Saying something abstract like there have always been crooked politicians is a far cry from accusing Republicans writ large of staging a coup over a period of two decades by way of massive election fraud.

I never said that was the idea from day one. I'm quite certain it just began as widening their power basis and they came up with the idea during the process, when they realised how far they they could take this process. I just claim it would be odd if they stopped taking things to their logical conclusion unless some obsticle came up.


A subtle shift, but it doesn't address my point. It doesn't matter when they started their mass conspiracy, be it ten years ago or last week, its an outlandish theory wholly unsupported by any evidence. Rank speculation doesn't count.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Corruption doesn't just include Democrats, as if there are always a few bad apples in each barrel, corruption was synonymous with Democrat in places like Chicago.

True, the process that I described happens in every democratic system that is based on popularity contests. The congress of USA is just the example I used, because it is the most obvious one.


Society is run on popularity contests no matter what system you have. Even a dictator can be overthrown by a large enough portion of the population aroused against him, though disparities in force may make that percentage higher than the 50.1% necessary in a representative system. Popularity contests extend beyond people to individual programs even. If your desire is to eliminate popularity contests then I fear you will forever search in vain.

My point in the quoted passage was to decry the unfair attention on corrupt Republicans, as if their behavior were somehow extraordinary, rather than, in historic terms, much more subdued than the other side.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
You're obviosly upset on some level if you felt the need to address it as your first point.

Those numbers are not a hierarchy, but order of appearance. I mentioned my lack of being upset first, because it's the first sentence in the quote from you. Assumption is the mother of all f*ckups.


You're still sounding upset. I used it as a throw away line, to characterize an intellectual affront at the Republican's alleged activities at most, but now it sounds like your emotions are bubbling over. Though I'm not sure why using the word upset was so, upsetting, I meant nothing by it.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
The Republicans aren't clever, but they've managed to pull off massive electorial fraud under the noses of the entire nation, including Democrat polling officials, attorney's, numerous state secretaries of election, etc for decades? What would you call clever if not that? I'd call it dilusional paranoia actually.

You are mixing arguments. 1. The electorial fraud hasn't happened yet. It isn't 2008 yet. 2. I specifically said the electorial fraud is NOT massive, but totally the opposite. It's going to be so small that it goes unnoticed simply because it looks insignificant. 3. One doesn't need to be clever to have a plan. If they were clever, it wouldn't be anyone who'd know about it.


So up to this point the Republicans haven't committed any fraud, the current state of the government is an accurate representation of the people's will?

I know you said that the fraud wasn't massive (heck, it hasn't happened yet apparently). My point was that it is impossible to change the outcome of the elections, even in swing states, without massive fraud. Even narrow elections are not usually "that" narrow and even when they are, like in Florida, there is no way to know ahead of time. When the Daily machine stuffed ballots in Chicago they didn't want to win by a measly thousand votes, they wanted a sure thing landslide. There's too much risk that you'll miscalculate otherwise and electronic voting just isn't widespread enough in places like Missouri, for instance, nor are the nature of electronic voting machines such that they lend themselves to subtle manipulation. These things are watched, carefully, by both parties and government officials. You'd have to rig hundreds of machines across the state and it would simply require too many people in the know to make this scenario realistic.

Quote:
 


Wow. You actually believe the sheep called voters make their own decisions. I guess soon you say voter manipulation isn't possible.
Anyway thanks to you I now undestand why democrats were so easy to lure into the contest. They thought they could get their old support areas back, but weren't as ruthless or determined as republicans.


If the voter goes into the polling place of their own free will and by exercise of that free will cast their deliberate ballot then yes, they made their own decision, regardless of how poor that decision might have been or what information they might have made it off of. The positions of both sides are out there. Each voter is responsible for their own state of mental prepardedness to vote. If they fail to inform themselves and make a good decision that's not for you or I to judge.

I'm not sure how anything I said led you to the conclusion that Democrats were lured into the contest (since the contest is a result of the electorial structure, not to some recent creature that has arisen). I'm also not sure how you guage the collective ruthlessness of the two parties, especially after you just got through saying that the Republicans were basically idiots who stumbled into this conspiracy that they have not yet, but are now preparing to unleash in 2008.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I don't think you understand the size of the undertaking that you are contemplating here. Pick any contested state you want.

You don't understand how easy it is for the republicans to win. There are about 10 contested states. If the republicans can get 25% of them for themselves, they have majority. Since contested states are contested, with around 50% onfor both parties, the republicans would have to lose ground 25% before they need to cheat even one vote. When you add there the possibility of a possible fraud of say 20000 votes in a critical zone losing becames very unlikely. There are about 50 million people in the contested states. Let's say it's around 15 million voters, half of which cast votes. That's 7,5 million votes. A fraud with 20000 votes is so small it fits in the margin of error. You'd have to have some very bad luck to be noticed.


The problem is that Republicans won't know until after the election how many of those contested seats that they're going to lose. To be safe they'd have to cheat in every state or else risk losing them all. When cheating inside a state you can't dump 20,000 votes in a single district and 20,000 votes won't be enough to win anyway in all probability. In 2004 the close elections were generally much higher.

State election spread \ total votes \ %
CO - 100,520 \ 2,107,554 \ 4.76%
FL - 802,663 \ 7,429,894 \ 10.8%
KY - 22,622 \ 1,724,362 \ 1.3%
NC - 158,923 \ 3,472,082 \ 4.57%
SC - 152,783 \ 1,597,221 \ 9.56%
SD - 4,508 \ 391,188 \ 1.15%

As you can see only two states out of these in 2004 could have been won on the basis of 20,000~ votes. In SD 20,000 votes was over 5% of the total votes which is significant so really your only candidate would be kentucky. Even if you could predict before hand which contested states would be safe and which ones would not, an impossible task, you would still be unable to swing hardly any on the basis of 20,000 hard to implant votes. Even in Kentucky I suspect you would have to spread those 20,000 votes out over almost the entire state to prevent it from looking suspicious because the state is mostly rural and would thus defy large vote stuffing in one area.

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/tables.pd...ote%20totals%22


Quote:
 

Quote:
 
I'm sorry, but your scenario just doesn't make any sense. ...  Its possible that our government was taken over by space aliens in the 1950s, but without proof its just material to line your tin hat with.

Well, how'd you know. You have distorted my arguments at every turn so badly that I don't even recognise them. Frankly, I don't think I need to say anything. You started a debate of your own three posts ago in which I have had no part. You have taken my arguments and created your own twisted versions of them, which you then have no trouble refuting. Unfortunately that is the 'straw man'-logical fallacy - one of the 10 great no-nos of debating. Check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
The guy with the tin hat is a figment or your own imagination and all the incomprihensible stuff it has said is from your own mouth with a few out-of-context words of mine added in the mix.


You can claim that, I'll let the readers decide who has characterized who properly for themselves.

Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Even more devistating to your theory is the overwhelming lack of proof.

My strain of thought comes from to simple premises: 1. When you take a selection of 200 average people, there is atleast one apple in the mix. 2. The bad apple has an advantage over regular people, because he has additional options in his arsenal of options.
Those are the premises. If you find a flaw in them, feel free to tell about it. Everything else of my general theory about the advancement of corruption in democratic systems is a chain of events that follow from those two. If you can think of some factor that could stop this progress from reaching it logical conclusion, please tell me.
What comes to my specific example of republican and democrats, the process of reducing contested states and voting machines, I read about them from an internet column: http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/2/kuttner-r.html I admit, it's been a long time since a last read this so I apologise if I've made mistakes. Here are some quotes from the article upon which I have based my own arguments about republicans and democrats:


The flaw is that your premise doesn't lead to the conclusion we've seen here in your extended rant against Republicans. Of course there are other flaws as well, such as the nature of elected office defying most individuals long term access to power (incumbant advantage aside, you've not demonstrated that more than a few politicians are "lifers"), especially when term limits are in effect, the limits of the law on the influence of bad actors, and the limits created by the public themselves once they discover the ill will of the official.


Quote:
 

Quote:
 
But since the early 1980s, the number of contestable House seats has come down and down. It's not that voter preferences have become more stable; there are actually more registered independent voters than ever. Rather, in state legislatures both parties have worked to create unprecedented numbers of safe congressional seats.

Quote:
 
Both parties are partly to blame, but as the recent super-gerrymandering caper in Texas illustrates, Republicans have played dirtier.

Quote:
 
Many Democrats thought themselves clever to collude in the safe-seat game. But this particular bout of musical chairs has ended with a nearly frozen House that is structurally tilted Republican.

Quote:
 
Today, however, with only about 25 effectively contestable seats, Democrats would have to win about three-quarters of the contestable races to take control

Quote:
 
In the aftermath of the Republican theft of Florida's electoral votes and the 2000 presidential election, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act. Many states are using HAVA funds to shift from now-prohibited punch cards or old-fashioned voting machine systems to ATM-type computer terminals. However, the three biggest makers of such computerized voting systems have financial ties to the Republican Party, and there is already evidence that the biggest manufacturer, Diebold, has had trouble designing tamper-proof systems.


That's a long post. Read it twice before making comments of it. I don't won't to make another right after this one just because someone didn't read this one properly. I admit I'm an unskilled and sloppy writer (english second language.), but that's no excuse for you to be a sloppy reader. Go back up and start reading from the beginning, NOW!


Bold claims, but no evidence to support them. Nothing but rank speculation based on who owns controlling shares in a few companies (although I've not seen any evidence to show that those persons are republicans come to think of it) and the misapplication of a political phenomenon that is the result of the structure of the electorial process as outlined in the Constitution rather than a plot by partisans, either devised or stumbled upon.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
严加华
Member Avatar
Magister Ludicrous
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kalkin
Oct 11 2006, 09:25 AM
Quote:
 
Now the Republicans are trying to engage in a coup? Are you always this loose with terminology?

English is my second language. If you have a better word for a democracy being switched with an oligarchy of greedy and ruthless people backed by oil- and weapons industry lobbiests then tell me.


Business as usual?

Oh, and if you want to be persuasive as an ESL type, you'd best not try to pass yourself off as one to an ESL teacher. A polyglot ESL teacher, no less, who can spot ESL types from about a dozen different linguistic backgrounds at 50 paces with both hands tied behind his back. Or at least do some research on how to act as one. (I've successfully passed myself off as an Iranian immigrant and as a Chinese native in various places for amusement. It takes effort, though, that you haven't bothered to spend.)
LC Sez: Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kalkin
Disgraced Dictator
[ *  *  * ]

Ja jos et muuten usko niin yritäpä löytää joku amerikanenglantia äidinkielenään puhuva tulkkaamaan näin harvinaista kieltä. Neil Hardwick ei kelpaa, koska hän on britti. Jos todella olet englannin opettaja niin kyllä sinun olisi pitänyt huomata käyttämäni sanavarastoni kapeus. Toisekseen vain englantia toisena kielenä puhuvat/kirjoittavat jäykkää kirjakieltä. Luonnostaan sitä puhuvat käyttävät kieltä joustavammin.

If you couldn't read that on your own, find a SECOND finn to translate it.
Edited by Kalkin, Sep 2 2011, 01:42 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
piercehawkeye45
Member Avatar
Franklin Pierce
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Kalkin
Oct 11 2006, 02:48 PM
Ja jos et muuten usko niin yritäpä löytää joku amerikanenglantia äidinkielenään puhuva tulkkaamaan näin harvinaista kieltä. Neil Hardwick ei kelpaa, koska hän on britti. Jos todella olet englannin opettaja niin kyllä sinun olisi pitänyt huomata käyttämäni sanavarastoni kapeus. Toisekseen vain englantia toisena kielenä puhuvat/kirjoittavat jäykkää kirjakieltä. Luonnostaan sitä puhuvat käyttävät kieltä joustavammin.

What is that?

Doesn't look like a Latin or Germanic based so is it a Slavic language?

Edit-The funny thing is that even though I knew Kalkin was ESL because he lived in Europe and obviously wasn't British, he has a lot better English than a majority of Americans (not necessarily from this site but in general).
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real
Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed
I'm America!

I have found the enemy and he is us.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flamingo
Member Avatar
Penis goes in here
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
piercehawkeye45
Oct 11 2006, 08:13 PM
Kalkin
Oct 11 2006, 02:48 PM
Ja jos et muuten usko niin yritäpä löytää joku amerikanenglantia äidinkielenään puhuva tulkkaamaan näin harvinaista kieltä. Neil Hardwick ei kelpaa, koska hän on britti. Jos todella olet englannin opettaja niin kyllä sinun olisi pitänyt huomata käyttämäni sanavarastoni kapeus. Toisekseen vain englantia toisena kielenä puhuvat/kirjoittavat jäykkää kirjakieltä. Luonnostaan sitä puhuvat käyttävät kieltä joustavammin.

What is that?

Doesn't look like a Latin or Germanic based so is it a Slavic language?

For some reason, It looks like Icelandic to me, but i don't think it is.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and Religion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Theme Made by Sionthede of the IFSZ.