Master Index of Archived Threads


Oprah?

41Forever Jan 08 2018 07:21 PM

Thoughts? Would she team up with Uma? [url]https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/letterman-oprah-uma-joke-oscars_n_6950490.html I think the pendulum swings, and it will swing back toward a more traditional politician in three or seven years.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 08 2018 07:24 PM Re: Oprah?

She's a nice gal, I can tell you that. And the pendulum's due to swing back to someone who's not deranged.

Lefty Specialist Jan 09 2018 12:20 AM Re: Oprah?

The solution to someone totally unqualified to be President is NOT to run someone else totally unqualified to be President.

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 02:38 AM Re: Oprah?

Lefty Specialist wrote: The solution to someone totally unqualified to be President is NOT to run someone else totally unqualified to be President. mr small hands isn't a bad president because he's unqualified/not a politician, he's unqualified because he's a bad person that doesn't care about other people. I don't believe you have to be a Harvard Lawyer to be a good president, or hell, a congressperson. I think the country might be better off if it had MORE 'unqualified' people, not less.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2018 02:58 AM Re: Oprah?

There was this scene in the first couple of days or two of Congressman Sonny Bono's Washington-is-Mars act, where he took his time at a committee meeting to criticize his colleagues for showing off their erudition, using "legalese" as they discussed the bills before them. The Congressman who was particularly being chided came back with, "But Congressman Bono, we're writing laws." I'll take qualified, experienced lawmakers at our highest levels of government, given half a choice.

metsmarathon Jan 09 2018 04:17 AM Re: Oprah?

I mean, you kinda want people who understand laws writing them. Not all of government is writing laws mind you, but understanding law is indeed fairly important. You probably want someone with an engineering background running the high tech company right? I agree we need more diverse pool of politicians, with a broader base of experience beyond just law (like tech, science, education, etc fields would be good) but to think that lawers make poor writers of law is folly.

Nymr83 Jan 09 2018 05:15 AM Re: Oprah?

I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me.

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 02:36 PM Re: Oprah?

metsmarathon wrote: I mean, you kinda want people who understand laws writing them. Not all of government is writing laws mind you, but understanding law is indeed fairly important. You probably want someone with an engineering background running the high tech company right? I agree we need more diverse pool of politicians, with a broader base of experience beyond just law (like tech, science, education, etc fields would be good) but to think that lawers make poor writers of law is folly. engineering background is not necessarily an engineer. I want someone that's a good leader, and I don't care if that person's 22 either. Decision making, particularly one where you're fed facts and information from other, hopefully, intelligent and informed people is not necessarily a trait that you get better at with experience. yes, there are some legal technical stuff that a president has to undertake, but a non-lawyer/non-politician would then be expected to hire a law expert at two to help guide her. lawyers are not some magical gatekeepers to a trove a special knowledge that only they've been trained to interpret. And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? does a good reader make a good writer? It helps, sure. there's an experience factor. "I know the cheese goes between the bread because I've reviewed these from the other side" is nice, but also you could just ask your expert when you want to build a grilled cheese. But sure, I come at from the opinion of wanting vast change and innovation. I want cutting edge science investment, banning driving a car in the near future, and withdrawing troops from much of the world. among other things. I'm not particularly interested in another career politician that well gradually nudge things along instead of setting/holding us back. Because that's roughly what we get nowadays. You can elect the democrat that'll edge us forward where she can, or the republican that will either hold us back, or set us back, as a country. But then again, maybe if we could stop slipping in the setting us back guys the progress would seem more incremental? I'm open to finding out at least.

41Forever Jan 09 2018 02:42 PM Re: Oprah?

Banning driving a car in the near future? Do you mean that because you favor the move to autonomous vehicles or do you think we all should only have access to bikes and trains?

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 02:50 PM Re: Oprah?

41Forever wrote: Banning driving a car in the near future? Do you mean that because you favor the move to autonomous vehicles or do you think we all should only have access to bikes and trains? autonomous. The process will go so much faster if we remove the human element (I'm aware this is extremely unlikely)

Edgy MD Jan 09 2018 03:30 PM Re: Oprah?

Nymr83 wrote: I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me. That's pretty much sensible. Ceetar wrote: And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? Anybody else think this analogy doesn't work? It also distorts the position of other people.

41Forever Jan 09 2018 03:48 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: I think it is a good thing to get people who have a history of doing more than politics into office. I don't think that should start at the presidency. someone with no political experience running for the House seems fine with me. That's pretty much sensible. And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? Anybody else think this analogy doesn't work? It also distorts the position of other people. Technically, the staff writes the bills, and a lot of them have law degrees. But it's good to know what's in them and it sure does help if you know the legalese. Interesting aside: The top profession of lawmakers is attorneys. The second? Insurance agents. Lots of money in insurance. Also explains why you have trouble getting insurance reform laws passed. That said, we work with a lot of state lawmakers, and there are very good ones from a wide variety of professions -- dairy farmers, doctors, business people, people who started in local government and working up.

metirish Jan 09 2018 04:01 PM Re: Oprah?

I don't know , I'm not overly excited , as former talk show hosts go Jerry Springer would be my pick.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2018 04:06 PM Re: Oprah?

Or maybe Space Ghost. Oprah wouldn't be my choice to be the next President, but if we had the chance to put her in office tomorrow, I'd be all for it. To revive an old CPF chestnut, "she can't be worse than what we already have." I would certainly prefer kind and compassionate and inexperienced over selfish and vulgar and ignorant and inexperienced.

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 04:09 PM Re: Oprah?

in a nutshell there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially a cat that is as problem ridden as the government. I'm on board with trying new approaches, and if that's hiring smart or compassion people or whatever, then fine.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2018 04:10 PM Re: Oprah?

And this is weird. The Daily News pulled this cover from their archives, from 1999:

Centerfield Jan 09 2018 04:26 PM Re: Oprah?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Or maybe Space Ghost. Oprah wouldn't be my choice to be the next President, but if we had the chance to put her in office tomorrow, I'd be all for it. To revive an old CPF chestnut, "she can't be worse than what we already have." I would certainly prefer kind and compassionate and inexperienced over selfish and vulgar and ignorant and inexperienced. All of this. Including the Space Ghost part.

metsmarathon Jan 09 2018 04:42 PM Re: Oprah?

engineering background is not necessarily an engineer. sure. i guess shame on me for using lawyer to indicate law background. law background helps in writing laws. engineering background helps when engineering stuff. coding background helps when writing software. if your're writing laws relevant to a specific field, ie dairy farming, it helps to have insight into dairy farming, just as if you're writing laws that affect science thingies, you want a science background. i guess what we need are intelligent people from diverse backgrounds that also have an understanding of law thingies. I want someone that's a good leader, and I don't care if that person's 22 either. Decision making, particularly one where you're fed facts and information from other, hopefully, intelligent and informed people is not necessarily a trait that you get better at with experience. i want good leaders too. it's really hard to demonstrate that you're a good leader at 22. i guess we'll just take the guy who just led his college sportball team to their most recent sportball championship. i disagree strongly that decision-making and leadership does not improve with age. with age comes experience and maturity. you typically need both to make good decisions. the advantage of youth is that you presumably are more ripe to incorporate new technical information. lets find a balance before turning the country over to the snot-nosed kids who just fell out of their fraternities the night before. yes, there are some legal technical stuff that a president has to undertake, but a non-lawyer/non-politician would then be expected to hire a law expert at two to help guide her. lawyers are not some magical gatekeepers to a trove a special knowledge that only they've been trained to interpret. this fits within my paradigm of having a broad-based group of people involved in the lawmaking. you don't want none lawyers, just as you don't want all lawyers. And also, to think lawyers make good writers of law (And the president shouldn't be writing laws, theoretically) is also folly. does a food critic make a good chef? does a good reader make a good writer? It helps, sure. there's an experience factor. "I know the cheese goes between the bread because I've reviewed these from the other side" is nice, but also you could just ask your expert when you want to build a grilled cheese. if you don't have a good law expert guy involved in the writing of the laws, you'll find a law full of holes for a good law guy to find a way through and around. how is a food critic akin to a law expert in your analogy? a successful food critic, unless they're just a guy with a blog and a personality who developed a following, should have a solid foundation in the culinary arts, ideally with lots of studying and learning, so that tehy actually know about what they're critiquing. they may not be able to execute the requisite knife skills, or have the ability to conjure up new dishes on a whim, but they do need to understand that which they critique. i think the reverse of your analogy is more true to the point. a good chef would make a fine food critic, no? the chef is the guy making the laws here. and the food critic is the one using and applying those laws. i suppose. a good writer is probably also a good reader. i think your analogies as presented are all backwards here. is the chef or the critic the lawmaker? is the writer or reader the lawmaker? if you want to hire a chef, you want the one with the strongest culinary background, right? if you want a writer, you want the one with the literary background. if you want a good law-writer, you want one with a law background. if you want an engineer, you want one who studied engineering. now, if you want an engineer to build you a car, you want one who has a background in automotive engineering. a software engineer is going to be fairly useless here, much as a chemical engineer. but your mechanical engineer isn't going to be great at designing a new chemical reactor chamber, and your chem eng probably isn't going to develop a CMMI level III information systems framework. (actually mechanical engineers are awesome and can do everything, but that's hardly the point here) But sure, I come at from the opinion of wanting vast change and innovation. change and innovation got us donald trump. i want demonstrated experience and knowledge of that which they desire to change. I want cutting edge science investment, banning driving a car in the near future, and withdrawing troops from much of the world. among other things. I'm not particularly interested in another career politician that well gradually nudge things along instead of setting/holding us back. Because that's roughly what we get nowadays. You can elect the democrat that'll edge us forward where she can, or the republican that will either hold us back, or set us back, as a country. But then again, maybe if we could stop slipping in the setting us back guys the progress would seem more incremental? I'm open to finding out at least. i want many of these things! cutting edge science investment - good! very good! tremendous! more of that! all of that! so much good! banning driving a car. uh... ... ... i mean, this is a tangent to dive off onto, but.. um. that ain't going to happen. no way. no how. not any time soon. there will always be a market for, and a need for, manually operated vehicles. you'll have an easier time with an outright ban on firearms than on banning manually operated motor vehicles. certainly not in this century. we're still decade(s) away from autonomous vehicles being a viable thing. forcing them to be the only means of motorized transportation is a pipe dream at this point. it shouldn't even be on any serious politician's or policy-maker's radar. you know, horses and bicycles are legal on most motorways. it would certainly make autonomous vehicles easier if they didn't have to worry about pesky humans getting in their way, but pesky humans and unexpected circumstances will always have to be in the mix, unless we outlaw deer and other sources of roadkill. and if you've got an autonomous vehicle that can handle a deer darting out across a highway, you can handle a human operator acting like a human. and as long as anyone's got a military, we should have a military. and it's to our benefit to have our military spread out around the world. better still if they would do so without fighting. and that's the part to focus on. we have a government which handles trillions of dollars and is responsible for 300 million citizens, is massively influential in the world economy and contributes greatly to international diplomacy, peace, and yes, war. incremental change is probably for the better, as massive unintended consequences tend to have wide-reaching impacts. a government comprised of only one flavor of voice would be horribly disastrous. the balancing voices are important and useful. at least, when teh both sides of the argument try to work together towards achieving the common goal of governance and leadership. our shit is indeed broken right now, but ousting all of one side isn't the answer, nor is blindly following one path. and also, neither is jettisoning anyone with experience or expertise in the matter. we need to find the right people for the job. by evaluating those specific people for the specific jobs. not by making blanket claims and assumptions about what we want and don't want. back to oprah. she would be an interesting voice. and would add an interesting dynamic to any campaign she was a part of. i'm not convinced that she can run a country, but i'm not pre-disposed to thinking that she cannot. it's just that the evidence of her celebrity is not nearly enough evidence. celebrity or entertainering is not a disqualifier. so lets talk about her qualifications...?

Edgy MD Jan 09 2018 05:04 PM Re: Oprah?

It's most typical that somebody from a professional background like dairy farming would join the house or a state legislature, and get put on committees relevant to that real-world background (agricultural subsidies, labor, antitrust, interstate trucking), and do their deepest work in that field, and take the advice of trusted staff and colleagues on stuff he or she isn't particularly versed in. Then, gradually getting his or her feet wet, he or she becomes versed in the finer points of law — unintended consequences, Constitutional concerns, torts, the social effects of different types of sentencing ... and gradually becomes more of a nuanced lawmaker, and less vulnerable to manipulation by crafty, self-interested parties. None of that says a dairy farmer shouldn't be a lawmaker. Quite the opposite. (Was Harry Truman's family in dairy?) But I'm not keen on one going straight to the big chair.

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 05:08 PM Re: Oprah?

That's a lot to process at once. muddy thread, so I'll stick sorta to the topic and leave the cars and my other pipe dreams to another time. I don't want the chef with the best culinary background, or the writer with the best education or literary background. at least, not always. I want the best story, or the best dish, and both are subjective. a good analogy here might be the recent craze in beer of cloud fruit-forward IPAs. 'technical' brewers because the style is 'wrong' because it's not supposed to be cloudy, it's supposed to be more bitter, it's not supposed to have flour/oats/etc. Mostly, people are coming around because people love the beers. they're easy to love, easy to drink, and aren't complicated. Sure, it's not as sophisticated, but turns out sophistication isn't necessary what people are looking for. Same for politicians, and perhaps for sports stars and other public figures too. we don't want stuffy suits that graduated the boy's club. or less of them anyway. Change and innovation didn't get us trump. the other 15 'serious' candidates being stodgy incompetent career politicians and the clickbait media coverage had a lot more to do with it than simply people wanting someone different. I'm not saying no lawyers, no 'worked through the political ladder' type people, but what, 98% of Washington is that already? even if we flooded the ballots with different folk in 2018 and 2020 they'd still be the majority. And they can help out writing and executing solid legislation and spotting/fixing holes a rookie might make. I wasn't really suggesting the 22 year old guy from his frat, but I think there are extreme diminishing returns on the value of experience and decision making as you get older. And no leader is an island, and if you appointed a, let's say 31 year old woman, head of a giant company, she'd have a ton of resources to suggest those historical examples that might help inform a decision. One person's personal experience is probably still a pretty small sample size and relying on that might actually be worse than not having it. I don't know enough about Oprah to really say how intelligent or 'leaderish' she is, but she seems like she'd be an okay choice. I think I'd prefer someone younger, more towards 35 than 65, though.

Mets Willets Point Jan 09 2018 05:48 PM Re: Oprah?

Nope-rah.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2018 05:50 PM Re: Oprah?

Mets Willets Point wrote: Nope-rah. Because she's gonna have to get in line. Doesn't Oprah know that the first cunt daughter already decided that she, Ivanka, is going to be the first female president?

41Forever Jan 09 2018 05:52 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: in a nutshell there is more than one way to skin a cat, especially a cat that is as problem ridden as the government. I'm on board with trying new approaches, and if that's hiring smart or compassion people or whatever, then fine. I don't think it's as problem ridden as you imagine. There are pockets of problems, unquestionably. But a lot -- a lot -- of really good people who got into it for the right reasons and do make a difference before turning over the keys to the next guy.

Mets Willets Point Jan 09 2018 05:53 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Mets Willets Point wrote: Nope-rah. Because she's gonna have to get in line. Doesn't Oprah know that the first {misogynist term excised} daughter already decided that she, Ivanka, is going to be the first female president? Nah, I just have this crazy idea - and hear me out here - that making an inspirational speech on an important issue does not make one a candidate for President.

41Forever Jan 09 2018 05:58 PM Re: Oprah?

we're still decade(s) away from autonomous vehicles being a viable thing. That was a great post, but I disagree on this. The rate of change in this area is incredible. Will it be a decade before most people have one? Maybe. But they'll be on the road within five -- or less.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2018 06:00 PM Re: Oprah?

Mets Willets Point wrote: Mets Willets Point wrote: Nope-rah. Because she's gonna have to get in line. Doesn't Oprah know that the first cunt daughter already decided that she, Ivanka, is going to be the first female president? Nah, I just have this crazy idea - and hear me out here - that making an inspirational speech on an important issue does not make one a candidate for President. I have an even crazier idea that a psychopathic career grifting semi-literate real estate scammer with mob ties and no political experience who can't go two sentences without telling six lies would not make a presidential candidate either.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 09 2018 06:03 PM Re: Oprah?

If it was up to me .... If I had a crystal ball and knew that Oprah would win in 2020 if she ran, then I'd be all for it. I'm not taking any chances with any other candidate, no matter how qualified they are. A bird in the hand ....

Mets Willets Point Jan 09 2018 06:15 PM Re: Oprah?

If the Democrats don't focus on Congressional elections in 2018 - and thousands of elections for governors and state legislatures - then it's not really going to matter who they nominate for President in 2020. The singular focus on the Presidency is what got us into this mess in the first place. Between 1992 and 2016 the Dems lost control of Congress (after 60 years in the majority), went from controlling 30 state legislatures to only 11, and from 30 governors to only 18. They need to make it top priority to reverse that trend. Until they make some headway in that area I don't want to hear shit about 2020.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2018 06:40 PM Re: Oprah?

Not for nothing, but Oprah gave us Amos Oz and Dr. Phil.

Benjamin Grimm Jan 09 2018 06:41 PM Re: Oprah?

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

seawolf17 Jan 09 2018 06:41 PM Re: Oprah?

Mets Willets Point wrote: If the Democrats don't focus on Congressional elections in 2018 - and thousands of elections for governors and state legislatures - then it's not really going to matter who they nominate for President in 2020. The singular focus on the Presidency is what got us into this mess in the first place. Between 1992 and 2016 the Dems lost control of Congress (after 60 years in the majority), went from controlling 30 state legislatures to only 11, and from 30 governors to only 18. They need to make it top priority to reverse that trend. Until they make some headway in that area I don't want to hear shit about 2020. This. I'm not sold on Oprah Winfrey as an actual, viable candidate yet, but she's sure as hell more intriguing than any of the other celebs (The Rock?) who have been postulated as potential candidates.

Edgy MD Jan 09 2018 06:43 PM Re: Oprah?

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Mostly bad. When confronted with bullshit, the just leader asks how to keep that bullshit from infecting the country. The TV producer too often asks "Is this the sort of bullshit my audience will buy?" She's also given a platform to our fraud of a president not a few times.

Frayed Knot Jan 09 2018 07:57 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: There was this scene in the first couple of days or two of Congressman Sonny Bono's Washington-is-Mars act, where he took his time at a committee meeting to criticize his colleagues for showing off their erudition, using "legalese" as they discussed the bills before them. The Congressman who was particularly being chided came back with, "But Congressman Bono, we're writing laws." Sonny B., at least, had the good graces to start out as a Congressman and even that followed stints in town/city offices. These days those celebrities entering politics from another field [Corzine, Ahnold, Ventura, Franken,] or those self-proclaimed insiders whose sole claim is family ties [Hillary, Caroline K., etc.] tend to view Senator and/or Governor as the minimum entry level position. I mean, what's the point of having a big name if you can't start at or near the top? Agent Orange vaulting directly to the White House is merely the culmination of a trend that's been developing for a while on this front.

Ceetar Jan 09 2018 07:57 PM Re: Oprah?

there's also the crazy idea that Oprah running does not and should not preclude anyone else from running.

Nymr83 Jan 09 2018 11:37 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: there's also the crazy idea that Oprah running does not and should not preclude anyone else from running. Probably not, but we did learn in 2016 that an overly crowded primary field can get you the candidate that a plurality love but a majority hate.

cooby Jan 10 2018 12:15 AM Re: Oprah?

I have no doubt that oprah at least has intelligent friends for her cabinet

Ashie62 Jan 10 2018 04:44 AM Re: Oprah?

It is my personal belief that Oprah truly dislikes white people.

Lefty Specialist Jan 10 2018 12:05 PM Re: Oprah?

Mets Willets Point wrote: If the Democrats don't focus on Congressional elections in 2018 - and thousands of elections for governors and state legislatures - then it's not really going to matter who they nominate for President in 2020. The singular focus on the Presidency is what got us into this mess in the first place. Between 1992 and 2016 the Dems lost control of Congress (after 60 years in the majority), went from controlling 30 state legislatures to only 11, and from 30 governors to only 18. They need to make it top priority to reverse that trend. Until they make some headway in that area I don't want to hear shit about 2020. Very true. But one good thing from the Trump ascendancy (actually, the ONLY good thing) is that Democrats have shaken themselves out of their slumber. A Hillary presidency would have continued the previous trend. Now Democrats are fired up in places they never were before. And that portends good things both in 2018 and 2020. Note: Democrats controlled the House from 1954 to 1994 when they lost it to Newt and friends. Controlled it again from 2006 to 2010. The Senate has been back and forth.

Edgy MD Jan 10 2018 01:34 PM Re: Oprah?

I'm not sure folks are awake enough. There should be protests every day. Organized. Massive.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 10 2018 02:22 PM Re: Oprah?

Let's just hope that the Supreme Court does the right thing with that Wisconsin gerrymandering case that's gonna be decided before summer's here. Some of these scumbag states are so extremely gerrymandered that in scumbag Michigan, for example, the nation's second worst extremely partisan gerrymandered state, it's believed that the Dems would need a state-wide vote of 65%, maybe 70% and perhaps as high as 75% to gain state and US House majorities. Think about that and then rephrase that another way: In Michigan, the scumbag GOP can hold onto state and US House majorities with perhaps, as little as 25% of the state-wide vote. Why bother voting? The day after Doug Jones's Alabama US senate seat victory, Rachel Maddow superimposed a map of the senate vote over the Alabama congressional district maps to demonstrate that even though the Dems eked out a one or two percent statewide electoral victory, that same vote would've given the Alabama GOP six of the seven House congressional districts. Chilling.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 10 2018 02:32 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The day after Doug Jones's Alabama US senate seat victory, Rachel Maddow superimposed a map of the senate vote over the Alabama congressional district maps to demonstrate that even though the Dems eked out a one or two percent statewide electoral victory.... And another thing: I realize that progress often comes maddeningly slow and in tiny increments but that Alabama is still a fucking disgrace of an embarrasement of a state, Doug Jones's victory notwithstanding. Roy Moore should've lost by 60 points instead of the one or two that he actually lost by.

Ceetar Jan 10 2018 02:35 PM Re: Oprah?

Nymr83 wrote: Ceetar wrote: there's also the crazy idea that Oprah running does not and should not preclude anyone else from running. Probably not, but we did learn in 2016 that an overly crowded primary field can get you the candidate that a plurality love but a majority hate. crazy idea that you don't need to go through a primary to run for president.

Mets Willets Point Jan 10 2018 02:53 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: I'm not sure folks are awake enough. There should be protests every day. Organized. Massive. This.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2018 03:33 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: Ceetar wrote: there's also the crazy idea that Oprah running does not and should not preclude anyone else from running. Probably not, but we did learn in 2016 that an overly crowded primary field can get you the candidate that a plurality love but a majority hate. crazy idea that you don't need to go through a primary to run for president. If Oprah doesnt go through the primary and runs as a 3rd party that takes votes mainly from the democrat she will be helping Trump win.

Edgy MD Jan 10 2018 03:34 PM Re: Oprah?

Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 10 2018 03:40 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing. What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate?

Ceetar Jan 10 2018 03:43 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing. What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate? there's no such thing as a 'main party' there are just candidates. let whoever wants to run, run. this isn't a college hockey tournament with brackets. There are no qualifying contests.

Nymr83 Jan 10 2018 04:41 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing. What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate? there's no such thing as a 'main party' there are just candidates. let whoever wants to run, run. this isn't a college hockey tournament with brackets. There are no qualifying contests. Its a "flaw" because there ia no runoff or instant runoff where you need 50% to win. So, under the current system, there is downside to a 3rd party if it takes away from your "2nd choice" who is more viable A fairer system would indeed let everyone run, but would re-allocate votes as your preferred candidate was the lowest ranked and keep doing that until someone hit 50%. Of course, this would require the same voters who cant figure out the current ballots to figure out how to rank choices. Many would end up fuckung up.

Edgy MD Jan 10 2018 04:53 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing. What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate? That the system is built to ensure only two viable parties. That a strong third party candidate generally ends up working against their own purposes, by siphoning off votes from the candidate ideologically closest to him on her, and so strengthening the likelihood that that her or his ideological opposite wins with a minority of support. I see that as fundamentally flawed, and a system that delivered us a profoundly damaging outcome that doesn't represent a very strong democratic outcome.

Ceetar Jan 10 2018 07:50 PM Re: Oprah?

I did preface it with 'crazy idea'

Edgy MD Jan 10 2018 08:12 PM Re: Oprah?

Nymr83 wrote: Its a "flaw" because there ia no runoff or instant runoff where you need 50% to win. So, under the current system, there is downside to a 3rd party if it takes away from your "2nd choice" who is more viable. A fairer system would indeed let everyone run, but would re-allocate votes as your preferred candidate was the lowest ranked and keep doing that until someone hit 50%. Of course, this would require the same voters who cant figure out the current ballots to figure out how to rank choices. Many would end up fuckung up. I don't think deriding the ignorance of the electorate is going to get us to a more just system. I certainly think flawed ballots are a gross minority. And if we can honorably work together on clear balloting procedures, all the better. The better angels of our nature aren't dead, they're just waiting for us to get offline. By the way, having come of age in a state with levers (New York), and then moving on to the District of Columbia and stylus machines, and then to Maryland where we fill in circles or boxes with pencils like we're taking the SAT, I messed up my ballot in 2016. I went to the supervisor, got a big eyeroll, but she walked me through how to negate my ballot and then gave me another one. Sorry, man, I only do it once every year or two. My wife is a cynic and hadn't voted in a while. The prospect of a then-prospective President Trump got her motivated and to the polls though.

41Forever Jan 10 2018 08:50 PM Re: Oprah?

I think a third party candidate siphoning votes from the main party candidates is an indication that voters are unhappy with the choices they've been offered. Rather than look for more ways to make it more difficult for third party candidates to gain traction, the parties are better off focusing on getting a strong candidate, building a solid platform built on principles and running a good campaign that captures the hearts and minds of voters beyond the base. If a party is doing those things, then it doesn't matter if there is a third (of fourth or fifth) party candidate. If a Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot or John Anderson is gaining enough steam that the parties are concerned about losing votes, then the parties need to take a hard look at what they are saying and doing.

d'Kong76 Jan 10 2018 08:54 PM Re: Oprah?

41Forever wrote: Rather than look for more ways to make it more difficult for third party candidates to gain traction, the parties are better off focusing on getting a strong candidate, building a solid platform built on principles and running a good campaign that captures the hearts and minds of voters beyond the base. *sigh*

Edgy MD Jan 10 2018 09:11 PM Re: Oprah?

I think building system that allows votes for those third party candidates not to work ironically against the voters' interest is something that we should do not because the mainstream parties are losing votes, but because it is a more just and representative way to run a democratic republic. Many countries and localities have done this. I write as a third-party voter, so yes, I was (and usually am) unhappy with the main parties' choices, but I'm further unhappy with the system rigged to work against voting for non-mainstream-party candidates.

d'Kong76 Jan 10 2018 09:36 PM Re: Oprah?

d'Kong76 wrote: *sigh* I'm sorry, and maybe I'm way off base, but when I read some of this stuff it's like you're standing at a podium with your arms outstretched reading off a teleprompter and not really saying anything. It's like text-book politician- speak. You're one of them. Well on one hand, and then on the other hand, bbbyyy... Again, I'm sorry.

cooby Jan 10 2018 09:40 PM Re: Oprah?

By the way, having come of age in a state with levers (New York), and then moving on to the District of Columbia and stylus machines, and then to Maryland where we fill in circles or boxes with pencils like we're taking the SAT, I messed up my ballot in 2016. I went to the supervisor, got a big eyeroll, but she walked me through how to negate my ballot and then gave me another one. Sorry, man, I only do it once every year or two. You had to negate a pencil written ballot? You couldn't just tear it up?

41Forever Jan 10 2018 10:03 PM Re: Oprah?

d'Kong76 wrote: d'Kong76 wrote: *sigh* I'm sorry, and maybe I'm way off base, but when I read some of this stuff it's like you're standing at a podium with your arms outstretched reading off a teleprompter and not really saying anything. It's like text-book politician- speak. You're one of them. Well on one hand, and then on the other hand, bbbyyy... Again, I'm sorry. No worries -- but I really was saying something (even if lapsing into politispeak). If you keep your own house in order and do the best job, then the competition -- in this case, a third party -- is worried about you and not the other way around! Do a good job with your candidate, message and campaign, and you don't have to worry about other people siphoning off your votes. Let them all run. The best ideas, in theory, will float to the top. TelePrompTers suck, by the way!

Frayed Knot Jan 10 2018 10:14 PM Re: Oprah?

seawolf17 wrote: Mets Willets Point wrote: If the Democrats don't focus on Congressional elections in 2018 - and thousands of elections for governors and state legislatures - then it's not really going to matter who they nominate for President in 2020. The singular focus on the Presidency is what got us into this mess in the first place. Between 1992 and 2016 the Dems lost control of Congress (after 60 years in the majority), went from controlling 30 state legislatures to only 11, and from 30 governors to only 18. They need to make it top priority to reverse that trend. Until they make some headway in that area I don't want to hear shit about 2020. This. Even more than the parties, the voters need to start paying more attention to local and congressional elections rather than having their entire agenda hang on the question of who has power in the White House at that particular moment. This applies to both sides of the aisle, btw, although I've long thought that the left, given their general belief in a stronger and more centralized gov't, have been more guilty of this than has the right - particularly in the recent past. Afraid of Roe v Wade being overturned? - well all that's going to do is kick the question back to the legislative process (where some argue it should have been all along) so do your best to make sure that if and when that does happen that your state has the votes to keep it legal ACA gets canceled? -- then have a say in what replaces it gay marriage / marijuana? -- who gives a fuck what DC thinks, elect folks who'll do it (or not do it) anyway! education? -- you really think Washington bureaucrats can run your kids' community school better than your community can run your community school? Try instead to have a say in how yours is run as opposed to awaiting instructions or standards from up on high, instructions that will probably involve some one-size-fits-all attempt that you won't like anyway. Ideally, having power that derived from the local on up is how our system was designed in the first place. But there's now been close to a century long trend -- largely kick-started by the Depression/WWII era -- towards looking to the Potomac for all the answers and particularly to the one end of Pennsylvania Avenue to the point where even Congress now seems to view itself as subservient to whatever comes out of the oval office.

Zvon Jan 11 2018 07:34 AM Re: Oprah?

This^. And I'm not a fan of much of MacFarlane's work. Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday? I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close.

Nymr83 Jan 11 2018 12:48 PM Re: Oprah?

Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday? I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close. Everyone's mileage will vary. While I don't want a Trump/Oprah, I also don't want an Obama. I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things.

Zvon Jan 11 2018 01:32 PM Re: Oprah?

Reading this thread I thought: what about the people who work all their lives in the field of politics and dream of getting to the oval office someday? I still don't exactly know how to phrase my entire thought dealing with this topic but that tweet is pretty darn close. Everyone's mileage will vary. While I don't want a Trump/Oprah, I also don't want an Obama. I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things. I get that. IMO the ones who would be worth supporting are the same ones who steer clear of the bigger spotlight. They concentrate more directly on taking care of their constituents. Some of those break through from time to time, usually because they are pushed into that bigger spotlight by those same constituents, who know the politician is not just lining his pockets or looking out for himself, because they have seen him in action outside of the big spotlight The internet is going to have to develop an app just for me: SenseCheck™

metsmarathon Jan 11 2018 01:39 PM Re: Oprah?

Nymr83 wrote: I want someone with political experience, but not a career politician who has never done other things. while i understand the sentiment, what that tells me is that, for some kid who comes out of college thinking, "screw talking about change and whining about the world, i'm going to go out there and make it a better damned place from the inside!" who maybe joins his local board of ed, or maybe town council, full of zeal and idealism and ideas and motivation, that that should be held against him as he moves up the ranks for having chosen politics as his career is silly to me. if you don't want "career politicians" don't vote for candidates for public office who behave as "career politicians". instead vote for those who will be your best representative, and who will execute the office most faithfully to the benefit of their constituency. even if political office has been their career.

Ceetar Jan 11 2018 02:51 PM Re: Oprah?

metsmarathon wrote: if you don't want "career politicians" don't vote for candidates for public office who behave as "career politicians". instead vote for those who will be your best representative, and who will execute the office most faithfully to the benefit of their constituency. even if political office has been their career. Right, we don't mean we don't want guys who have been in politics their entire careers. Mainly what it means is we don't want double-talking manipulators that spew propaganda at us while making decisions with the 3 biggest lobbyists that give them money. It's true of Trump, at least going in. you could find a large amount of people that dismissed the racism and idiocy as "locker room talk" and "talking off the cuff". Trump is a horrible evil man, but the deficits in Washington that make that approach appealing are still there. Say what you mean and don't be so afraid of screwing up that every statement is carefully crafted to basically say nothing and commit to nothing. I think that's what made Cory Booker appealing locally, just as a better person. But hell, there are plenty of politicians that get into it because they like being in charge. They like the control. They say they like to serve the public but what they really mean is they like to _direct_ the public. They like to set the course. They're the guy that always offers to drive because he wants to be in control, even though his car is smaller and more cramped.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2018 04:39 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Which is a horrible flaw in our system that we should be addressing. What's the flaw? That a 3P candidate takes votes away from a main party candidate? That the system is built to ensure only two viable parties. That a strong third party candidate generally ends up working against their own purposes, by siphoning off votes from the candidate ideologically closest to him on her, and so strengthening the likelihood that that her or his ideological opposite wins with a minority of support. I see that as fundamentally flawed, and a system that delivered us a profoundly damaging outcome that doesn't represent a very strong democratic outcome. But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process? Elections are zero sum games, aren't they. A vote for candidate "A" is always gonna be a vote that candidate "B" doesn't ever get. I don't see how that can be fixed. And I don't see how that's simply a symptom of our essentially two-party system. I think the bigger flaw, especially when you're dreaming of elections with more than two candidates with a realistic chance of winning, is that the House gets to determine the president in the event that no candidate wins a majority (at least 270) of the electoral votes. It's an un-democratic system because the House, theoretically, can choose the candidate with an infinitesimal number of electoral votes. And I'm surprised that that feature hasn't been exploited. The party in control of the House should be running multiple candidates designed to suction votes away from the House minority party to increase the chances that no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes. Either a plurality in the electoral college should be enough to win the presidency, or there should be a run-off to ensure that eventually, there is a candidate with at least 270 electoral votes. But this is just one of many fucked up features in our fucked up and un-democratic electoral college system.

Edgy MD Jan 11 2018 07:04 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process? I see it as a deep and fundamental flaw, and the presidential disaster is an outcome. And it's just one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't see how that can be fixed. There are localities in America and representative liberal democracies all around the world that have fixed it. A few of the potential fixes have been outlined in this thread.

Vic Sage Jan 11 2018 09:06 PM Re: Oprah?

Ashie62 wrote: It is my personal belief that Oprah truly dislikes white people. and Islamophobia? I do see extreme Islam as a threat each and every day. aren't you ever embarrassed by your own bullshit?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2018 09:42 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: But is that a flaw, or simply an immutable feature of the voting process? I see it as a deep and fundamental flaw, and the presidential disaster is an outcome. And it's just one. batmagadanleadoff wrote: I don't see how that can be fixed. There are localities in America and representative liberal democracies all around the world that have fixed it. A few of the potential fixes have been outlined in this thread. Maybe you could point me to some of these ideas. I don't see how the thing can be fixed. The more candidates, the likelier it is that some of them have overlapping agendas and believe in some of the same things. Ralph Nader, for example, could not have run without inevitably siphoning off many more votes from Gore than from Bush. This isn't fixable.

Ceetar Jan 11 2018 09:48 PM Re: Oprah?

it's because you're thinking of it as three candidates instead of like, 7. Some will take from Gore, others will take from Bush, etc. Stein voters 'took' from Hillary and Johnson 'took' from Trump. etc. But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary?

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2018 09:52 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: it's because you're thinking of it as three candidates instead of like, 7. Some will take from Gore, others will take from Bush, etc. Stein voters 'took' from Hillary and Johnson 'took' from Trump. etc. But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary? But you'll always have siphoning off, no matter how many candidates there are. Even with those seven candidates, the Bernie Bros would've ended up complaining that they would've gotten more votes but for Hillary running. Ceetar wrote: But like, what if the ballot had Bernie, Hillary, Stein, Johnson, Jeb, Ryan AND Trump? What happens to all the Trump voters who only showed up to vote against Hillary? Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways.

Ceetar Jan 11 2018 10:06 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways. Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14. Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2018 10:11 PM Re: Oprah?

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways. Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14. Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college. I didn't know we were talking about primaries. As for getting rid of the electoral college, that's, unfortunately, a pipe dream that won't happen without some kind of very violent revolutionary revolt.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 11 2018 10:32 PM Re: Oprah?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Maybe those voters split their votes between everybody but Trump, diluting their own bloc and giving Trump the presidency anyways. Primaries hardly analogous to an election, but Hillary got nearly 17 million votes, Bernie 13, Trump 14. Hillary got more in the real election too. Trump idiots are a minority, and a large part of the problem is simply party line voting because of one-issue things like abortion. You take so much of that out of it by getting rid of the two-party setup and the electoral college. I didn't know we were talking about primaries. As for getting rid of the electoral college, that's, unfortunately, a pipe dream that won't happen without some kind of very violent revolutionary revolt. And besides, if you had seven viable presidential candidates on the ballot, each with a realistic chance of winning the election, which is what you're hoping for, the House would end up picking the president because no candidate would likely receive the 270 minimum electoral votes required to win the election outright. So the crummy un-democratic system we're stuck with for selecting presidents wins again.

Lefty Specialist Jan 12 2018 12:38 AM Re: Oprah?

Yes, the Electoral College pretty much locks us into a two-party system, even if that wasn't the founders' intention.

Nymr83 Jan 12 2018 01:32 AM Re: Oprah?

Lefty Specialist wrote: Yes, the Electoral College pretty much locks us into a two-party system, even if that wasn't the founders' intention. it would actually be WORSE with a winner-take all popular vote, unless a majority was required with run-offs if a majority wasn't met. In 2017, for example, none of Johnson/Stein/McMullin won an electoral vote, but their combined vote total was twice Hillarys margin over Trump - not that that margin means anything since nobody can say they know who would have voted, not voted, or voted differently under a different system. voter turnout for example was down over a million voters from 2012, likely a result of two democrats running against each other in the senate race and most house elections in California being forgone conclusions.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2018 02:38 AM Re: Oprah?

Maybe you could point me to some of these ideas. Really? Because they're more than ideas. They exist in action all over the place. 1. The runoff. If no candidate receives a majority, voters are asked to return a few weeks later and select from the top two. Minority party voters enshrined their conscience in their candidate, without having undermined what they might see as the second-best option, accept that their candidate lost, but then vote again among the top two options. 2. Ranking the candidates. This produces the same outcome as above without the logistical problems and expense and extended campaigning. 3. Gifting your support. In the event of a no majority winner, candidates who have come in third or worse decide which candidate ahead of them they want to support, and their votes are gifted. It's also kind of a cheaper version of the runoff, but it has the downside of putting a losing candidate in the catbird seat, in a position to hold a Dutch auction, and his or her voters may well feel betrayed. 4. Proportional representation. This is more about electing legislatures than executives, but produces an outcome that is much more reflective of the popular sentiment than winner take all. It might seem alien to us, but the Irish have had it since the 20s and are very attached to it. [list]States President Trump Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote: Arizona Florida Michigan Nebraska (2nd district) North Carolina Pennsylvania Utah Wisconsin States Secretary Clinton Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote: Colorado Maine (at-large) Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico Virginia[/list:u] Put all those states to a run-off, I would imagine that there would be a good or great chance that we'd have a different outcome. In fact, run the election with any of the above first three systems in place, and President Trump would be getting fabulously wealthy right now launching a terrible cable TV network.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2018 04:56 AM Re: Oprah?

Maybe you could point me to some of these ideas. Really? Because they're more than ideas. They exist in action all over the place. 1. The runoff. If no candidate receives a majority, voters are asked to return a few weeks later and select from the top two. Minority party voters enshrined their conscience in their candidate, without having undermined what they might see as the second-best option, accept that their candidate lost, but then vote again among the top two options. 2. Ranking the candidates. This produces the same outcome as above without the logistical problems and expense and extended campaigning. 3. Gifting your support. In the event of a no majority winner, candidates who have come in third or worse decide which candidate ahead of them they want to support, and their votes are gifted. It's also kind of a cheaper version of the runoff, but it has the downside of putting a losing candidate in the catbird seat, in a position to hold a Dutch auction, and his or her voters may well feel betrayed. 4. Proportional representation. This is more about electing legislatures than executives, but produces an outcome that is much more reflective of the popular sentiment than winner take all. It might seem alien to us, but the Irish have had it since the 20s and are very attached to it. [list]States President Trump Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote: Arizona Florida Michigan Nebraska (2nd district) North Carolina Pennsylvania Utah Wisconsin States Secretary Clinton Won in 2016 Without Getting a Simple Majority of the Vote: Colorado Maine (at-large) Minnesota Nevada New Hampshire New Mexico Virginia[/list:u] Put all those states to a run-off, I would imagine that there would be a good or great chance that we'd have a different outcome. In fact, run the election with any of the above first three systems in place, and President Trump would be getting fabulously wealthy right now launching a terrible cable TV network. I know what a run-off is, and its' variations. In fact, I referred to a run-off in this very exchange. For some reason, I thought you were talking about something more realistic than a run-off because, try getting every state to enact presidential run-offs. The electoral college is an un-democratic archaic disaster but the nation will never muster up enough support to change it through conventional legal channels. It's probably here to stay unless enough of the population gets sick and tired of it to the point of violent revolt.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2018 02:26 PM Re: Oprah?

Well, I'm trying. Electoral reform is a hard row, but we've got to row together.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 12 2018 04:11 PM Re: Oprah?

Edgy MD wrote: Well, I'm trying. Electoral reform is a hard row, but we've got to row together. Well, the good thing about the Electoral College is that this historical phase we're currently in where the GOP can win presidential elections while losing the popular vote and even though more people self-identify as liberals than as conservatives is hopefully, just that -- a phase. Demographic trends indicate that in due time, red and purple states on the USA's southern border like Florida, Texas and Arizona that are trending blue, eventually will lean Democratic. This should better align the electoral college with the popular vote in future presidential elections and lessen some of the criticism this terrible voting system of ours deservedly receives. And we might avoid a terrible storming of the palace with guillotines and ropes and guns and all.

Edgy MD Jan 12 2018 05:24 PM Re: Oprah?

Well, as someone who finds a home in neither party, the system works against us no matter what. And there are a lot of us. Most of us, maybe.