Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Gravel as a Libertarian is an interesting fit. I'm not totally shocked.
I like the Liberatarian ideal but in a global corporate society we cannot let corporations "run free." We can already see the dangers of that. (lead paint, mine disasters, env degradation, E. coli outbreaks, falling wages, no health insurance, stop overtime pay, and the list goes on.)
I'm part of the libertarian-left as the past thread discussed. Libertarian on personal freedom, left on economic regulation.
Last Edit: Mar 27, 2008 9:39:35 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Gravel as a Libertarian is an interesting fit. I'm not totally shocked.
I like the Liberatarian ideal but in a global corporate society we cannot let corporations "run free." We can already see the dangers of that. (lead paint, mine disasters, env degradation, E. coli outbreaks, falling wages, no health insurance, stop overtime pay, and the list goes on.)
I'm part of the libertarian-left as the past thread discussed. Libertarian on personal freedom, left on economic regulation.
I think we're all left-libertarians here, with only one exception I can think of, or not too far from it.
I've got a handful of Libertarian friends, so I've spent many a night at the bar debating politics with their point of view. I can agree with that ideal... to an extent. After a certain point, I think libertarianism would undermine the social contract to a harmful degree.
Chris Dodd is also stepping up to call for an end to it.
I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that — and that’s not easy and I realize it’s painful — but the alternative, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think are irresponsible.
Florida Sen. Nelson is calling to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, and for regional primaries with six regions. He can kiss my ass on both counts.
Dean was on the morning shows today saying that this needs to be decided by the end of June
Seeing as McCain has just launched his first general election ad in New Mexico, I'd say that a new sense of urgency has been added to this. It simply HAS to be finished by then.
IMHO, June is waaaay too late. There is already a schism that may not be healed. By June neither Obama nor Clinton supporters will support the Party if their candidate is not selected. The Clinton "scorched earth" policy will destroy any Party unity well before then. And likely Obama will have to enter a severely negative campaign mode, damaging not only Clinton but himself.
Meanwhile McCain can stand back, collect money, and, ironically, play the sane and rational candidate.
I agree with Dodd and Richardson. We need a solution NOW. Too bad Dean is too much of an anti-establishment guy to be able to get the establishment to fall in line. They probably like making him look bad. (All part of the Democratic civil war between the establishment and the grassroots/netroots.)
Last Edit: Mar 28, 2008 11:33:22 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
Chris Dodd is also stepping up to call for an end to it.
I think it’s very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can’t be the nominee of the party. I think that’s a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that — and that’s not easy and I realize it’s painful — but the alternative, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think are irresponsible.
Florida Sen. Nelson is calling to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, and for regional primaries with six regions. He can kiss my ass on both counts.
I'm not sure about regional primaries, but your against abolishing the Electoral College? If we had a popular vote, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
Maryland is a pretty democratic state... Unless the dems REALLY screw up, they will win MD.
"<blank> is gonna win MD anyway... why should I go vote?" is commonly heard.
I think this should be changed..
I also think the primary process is borked. I don't see why Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are so damn important. When does my state get a chance to go first.. or even third?
Last Edit: Mar 28, 2008 12:22:36 GMT -5 by wooz - Back to Top
I could go either way on the Electoral college. Only twice has the popular vote not matched the electoral vote so I see it as not a major problem. Of course 2000 would have been a BIG deal but if ALL the votes in FL were counted, Gore won by any count.
I feel we've moved past the EU type "Union of States" which was in effect when the electoral college made sense. But I feel for smaller states which would get no consideration under a straight popular vote (of course they get little or no consideration now so...)
As I said, I can go either way.
And wooz, the Dems are trying to "really screw it up." I saw a recent poll somewhere that said 30% of Hillary voters now say they will vote McCain if Obama wins. Numbers are similar for Obama supporters.
Yeah, my grandmother is in that 30 percent. Shes buying everything Clinton is shoveling, and still believes Obama to be a racist muslim.
ok - so my mom does not buy off on the Clinton thing - but she does think Obama is a racist muslim and thinks John McCain would be good for this counrty - WTF???? (oh yeah - forgot - she is a serious conservative republican - that's what the problem is)
Yeah, my grandmother is in that 30 percent. Shes buying everything Clinton is shoveling, and still believes Obama to be a racist muslim.
ok - so my mom does not buy off on the Clinton thing - but she does think Obama is a racist muslim and thinks John McCain would be good for this counrty - WTF???? (oh yeah - forgot - she is a serious conservative republican - that's what the problem is)
that's my entire family!
we just really need to unite and get one candidate for the dem party because mccain is seriously benefiting from all the time he's been handed as basically being the only official presidential nominee. his point leads over hilary and obama has already risen. i'm actually getting nervous about the election whereas in january, i thought the dems had it in the bag.
I'm not sure about regional primaries, but your against abolishing the Electoral College? If we had a popular vote, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
Popular vote was debated and decided against by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention. We are a representative democracy in that we select individuals to do the decision-making etc for us. It's not like we all get a vote on policies in the House or Senate - we have elected representatives handle that for us. That's the way the system works, and the Electoral College is consistent with that. This is not to say that I am a fervent proponent of the Electoral College. I believe it does need some reform. Some call for scrapping it altogether, which I've addressed above. Others want to add 102 votes to the Electoral College to include the national vote. I have my own idea somewhere inbetween.
There are 538 EC votes, which can be broken down as follows: 436 are based on the number of House representatives/the people. 102 are based on the number of Senators/the states. I think the states should collectively agree to change how they allocate state votes. Currently, there are 51 winner-take-all contests in the 50 states & DC. Instead of this, I think the states should collectively agree to change these 102 votes to reflect the national popular vote. One percentage point of the NPV would equal one Electoral College delegate, with the extra two votes plus any remainder being awarded to the NPV winner. Hope my synopsis makes sense, but if it doesn't feel free to answer questions.
As for regional primaries, I'm opposed for a few reasons:
The potential to bias particular regions/electorates and candidates hailing from them.
Does not prevent piling-up of elections. States would have a certain time window to conduct primaries, but you could still see 10 or 12 states voting on the same day. That's contrary to the benefits of letting small states go first, which I think ought to be preserved.
While it might be more fair than the current system, I do not think it is fair enough.
Post by SouthGA_Festival Machine on Mar 28, 2008 13:48:38 GMT -5
kdogg said:
bigjohn said:
kdogg said:
I'm not sure about regional primaries, but your against abolishing the Electoral College? If we had a popular vote, we wouldn't be in this mess right now.
Popular vote was debated and decided against by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention. We are a representative democracy in that we select individuals to do the decision-making etc for us. It's not like we all get a vote on policies in the House or Senate - we have elected representatives handle that for us. That's the way the system works, and the Electoral College is consistent with that. This is not to say that I am a fervent proponent of the Electoral College. I believe it does need some reform. Some call for scrapping it altogether, which I've addressed above. Others want to add 102 votes to the Electoral College to include the national vote. I have my own idea somewhere inbetween.
There are 538 EC votes, which can be broken down as follows: 436 are based on the number of House representatives/the people. 102 are based on the number of Senators/the states. I think the states should collectively agree to change how they allocate state votes. Currently, there are 51 winner-take-all contests in the 50 states & DC. Instead of this, I think the states should collectively agree to change these 102 votes to reflect the national popular vote. One percentage point of the NPV would equal one Electoral College delegate, with the extra two votes plus any remainder being awarded to the NPV winner. Hope my synopsis makes sense, but if it doesn't feel free to answer questions.
As for regional primaries, I'm opposed for a few reasons:
The potential to bias particular regions/electorates and candidates hailing from them.
Does not prevent piling-up of elections. States would have a certain time window to conduct primaries, but you could still see 10 or 12 states voting on the same day. That's contrary to the benefits of letting small states go first, which I think ought to be preserved.
While it might be more fair than the current system, I do not think it is fair enough.
"Popular vote was debated and decided against by the Framers at the Constitutional Convention. We are a representative democracy in that we select individuals to do the decision-making etc for us." So, why do we need electors if they are just going to follow the popular vote, but we have them to make decisions for us?
You don't need a human an elector to make a decision in that instance because the popular vote decides it. The EC votes for %NPV would be added into the total, as opposed to a delegate making that decision.
The issue I see with that is whats mentioned on the wiki, the high travel costs involved. Besides that, I don't really have any huge issues with it...
Do you think campaign travel costs under that plan would exceed the bills from the 20+ state Super Fat Tuesday? What about the possibility of something similar to a franking privilege, but for campaign travel expenditures? We can make broadcasters air free public service announcements because it's for the public good; why not something like that involving the transportation industry?
I already explained why I don't think that's a good thing.
At least with the status quo, states aren't clustered into similar groups. This favors candidates from a particular region. Say the South goes is the first region and gets 10-12 votes. That is going to favor candidates who are strong in that region. I worry about the implications that may have down the line. I like that its primary schedules are spaced out and better-defined, but that whole regional bias factor doesn't sit well with me. In the America Plan, random selection neutralizes that bias.
Post by freedomofmusic on Mar 30, 2008 15:26:15 GMT -5
Sorry to interrupt, but can someone point me to this $29 billion investment firm discussion (related to the tax rebate checks)? I have looked and cannot find it. I'd like to share it with some of my stubborn relatives.
Also, I really enjoy all of the discussion here. Better than Meet the Press anyday.
I've got the itch to get back on the campaign trail lately. I graduate (and am no longer bound by federal restrictions associated with my internship) on May 18th, so that rules out pretty much everything except Montana and/or South Dakota on June 3rd. Still, I'm tempted to contact the Obama camp and see what can be done.
Post by freedomofmusic on Mar 30, 2008 15:45:46 GMT -5
kdogg said:
Are you referring to the Bear-Stearns bailout? I don't know exactly how that relates to the stimulus package.
Yes, I just ran across the answer in today's paper. I was confused about some discussion elsewhere and mistakenly thought it related to the "stimulus" plan.
This is what happens when your computer goes down for a few days. I've lost all touch with the outside world! Thanks.
Nope, that bailout is more associated with the subprime mortgage problem. Despite all the talk from the business/elite communities about individual responsibility and free markets, apparently government help is alright when it's the rich people who fuck up.
I've got the itch to get back on the campaign trail lately. I graduate (and am no longer bound by federal restrictions associated with my internship) on May 18th, so that rules out pretty much everything except Montana and/or South Dakota on June 3rd. Still, I'm tempted to contact the Obama camp and see what can be done.
what about doing something related to the convention? That'll keep you occupied through the summer and may lead to something in the fall.
My lease here ends on July 31st. I've thought about that possibility, but I'm hesitant to make plans like that until I know what the deal is between me and my native state.
I also have a friend who'll put me up in the Twin Cities for the GOP convention, if I can come up with enough money for bail before going.