[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 17 2008, 11:32 AM, said:

I find it a scary idea that a single person should have the mandate to veto legislation. Or that such a small group of persons as the government should have the right to delay or even block proposed legislation on the basis of their own political viewpoints. Or that voters should try to balance managerial qualifications and political views of the candidates.

And I grew up in a small country without international ambitions. In a big country it would be much more scary.

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

All power to technocrats

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

All power to technocrats

Who's talking about technocrats? Who's talking about people? I was talking about a single-politician body vs. a +/- 20-politician body vs a +/- 200-politician body. I have no clue how you relate this to technocrats vs people.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 17 2008, 11:52 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Well we sure do all of the above and much much more here in the USA 

I would be scared if people were forbidden to. I assume there is some punishment if a citizen breaks the forbidden rules in your country and does some of the stuff I advocate.

All power to technocrats 

Who's talking about technocrats? Who's talking about people? I was talking about a single-politician body vs. a +/- 20-politician body vs a +/- 200-politician body. I have no clue how you relate this to technocrats vs people.

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

Go back to your first posts.

"I'd prefer members of the government and heads of state to be selected purely on the basis of their management qualifications. What they think of proposed legislation (pro or contra war, gay marriage, tax increases etc.) ought to be irrelevant since the legislation is the parliament's business, not the government's, let alone the head-of-state's".


"As I see it, the reasons why government has the task of proposing legislation is purely technical. It should not be seen as a way for the government to exercise political power. If a sufficient large number of parliamentarians, or other legitimate body, wants the government to propose a law, then the government must do so even if it's against the particular law."

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

Go back to your first posts.

My first post was about a completely different issue, namely the primary elections vs. absolute majority rule.

I have no idea which of my posts you are referring to. In any case, I never advocated any restrictions on citizens behavior, electoral or otherwise, in any of my posts. Jail? WTF are u talking about?

[mike777]

I will try and rephrase. Under your rules, can people or the head of state propose laws to Parliament. Can they lobby? Can politics be considered?

If not then I assume 99% of the country ends up in jail for breaking your rules.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 17 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

What you write is really confusing, as I understand it, 99% of the country would be thrown in jail for breaking your rules.

Go back to your first posts.

My first post was about a completely different issue, namely the primary elections vs. absolute majority rule.

I have no idea which of my posts you are referring to. In any case, I never advocated any restrictions on citizens behavior, electoral or otherwise, in any of my posts. Jail? WTF are u talking about?

Yes you do...read your own posts.. I quoted them above. That is exactly what you propose.

[Al_U_Card]

It is not the method that is important, it is the dynamic and the inter-relationship of the composite bodies. As long as balance is maintained then (reasonable read functional) harmony and efficacy are obtained. It is when sand is added to the gears that problems occur. The recent movement towards increased executive privilege has been exacerbated by the "fear" of the legislative branch to conduct itself in an upstanding manner. Patriot act?!? Ron Paul deserves kudos for voting against it. At least he saw the writing on the wall.

[skjaeran]

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 12:45 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jan 16 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd never ever vote for a republican.
From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

Why never, ever?

That's easy.

I'm a social democrat, that's I'm voting on the left side (not far out on our political scale, but outside your scale) in norwegian politics. The republicans would place at the far right side in Norway, far from all my ground political beliefs.

Sure, even the democratic candidates will place to the right side of the center over here. But I'd be able to find at least some common ground there. A democratic president would pull in what I consider the right direction on some issues and avoid pulling in the wrong direction on others.

[mike777]

skaeran, on Jan 17 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 17 2008, 12:45 AM, said:

skaeran, on Jan 16 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

I'd never ever vote for a republican.
From over here I can't say I know the candidates enough, but I guess I'd prefer Hillary with Obama as VP.

Never ever is a very long time.....indeed very long time

Why never, ever?

That's easy.

I'm a social democrat, that's I'm voting on the left side (not far out on our political scale, but outside your scale) in norwegian politics. The republicans would place at the far right side in Norway, far from all my ground political beliefs.

Sure, even the democratic candidates will place to the right side of the center over here. But I'd be able to find at least some common ground there. A democratic president would pull in what I consider the right direction on some issues and avoid pulling in the wrong direction on others.

ok

What sort of policies would Republicans have to advocate to get your vote?
I am guessing it would have something to do with more of the country run by the central government?

This left/right stuff always confuses me. Left or right can mean so many things.
For instance the left or the right might be for war or more government spending/taxes or control.

[cherdano]

How about universal health care? Gun control? A liberal position on gay rights? A clear stand against a universal ban of abortion? In other words, be a democrat?

[mike777]

cherdano, on Jan 17 2008, 01:49 PM, said:

How about universal health care? Gun control? A liberal position on gay rights? A clear stand against  a universal ban of abortion? In other words, be a democrat?

alot of republicans are for that stuff, geez, even those running for president
1) Washington involved in heath care, ...check......we can debate the fine points but.
2) gun control, check...we can debate the fine points but...
3) legal abortion, check..we can debate the fine points but
4) rights for gays, check..we can debate the fine points but...

See Republicans are not totally evil.
If you want the republican party to do more in these areas..cool...tell them...join and tell them .

Bottom line I am guessing you want the federal government to do more and not the local or state govenments? You want the Democratic Congress setting the rules, not other people?
Is that the beef?

[Winstonm]

Mike,

Since when has any Republican presidential candidate other than Ron Paul advocated state rights over federal control?

Dem Democrats or Dose Rebulicats - same song, just different verses.

[PassedOut]

skaeran, on Jan 17 2008, 01:15 PM, said:

I'm a social democrat, that's I'm voting on the left side (not far out on our political scale, but outside your scale) in norwegian politics. The republicans would place at the far right side in Norway, far from all my ground political beliefs.

Sure, even the democratic candidates will place to the right side of the center over here. But I'd be able to find at least some common ground there. A democratic president would pull in what I consider the right direction on some issues and avoid pulling in the wrong direction on others.

When I visit folks in Norway, I'm very impressed with the quality of life there. It seems that people (my relatives, anyway) value the services provided by the government and see those services as worth the taxes they pay.

On the other hand, they shake their heads at the ridiculous health care "system" in the US. And I have to agree.

[sceptic]

I think George is a hard act to follow, this lady gets my vote

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=-7GpFFbfTLg

[kenberg]

In Maryland, where I live, you have to register in advance to vote in one primary or the other. I am registered as a Democrat and so I can only vote in that primary. This is more than a little frustrating. It is, I think, the 22nd amendment that prevents a president from serving more than two terms. Maybe we could expand it to apply to the immediate family of presidents. No sons. daughters, brothers wives, husbands, etc. OK, I know it's not really possible but historically we have had John Quincy Adams, not one of our more successful presidents and now W who is, well, W. Next up is Hillary. I don't really favor an amendment, but I think we should look cautiously at people whose prominence is heavily due to the fact that they are related to someone. I do think that Hillary has a better case for her candidacy than W had in 2000, but that is setting the bar very low.

As to John Edwards, I have listened to an interview with his wife and I think she would be one of our finest First Ladies. But JE always sounds to me like he is addressing a jury as a personal injury lawyer. There's Us, there's Them. Make Them pay.

Now to Obama. Well, maybe. But I never heard of him until he addressed the Democratic convention three years ago. No doubt he has many good qualities but should we put him in charge of the country? Maybe not. (Please, I know he wouldn't be "in charge" in the same way a king is, but a president has enormous power and "in charge" seems a reasonable description).

Come the general election, I will pay serious attention to the Republican candidate. I won't be voting for Huckabee or anyone else who wants to divide the country along religious lines but McCain is a very serious contender for my vote. I am a Democrat, I even voted for Michael Dukakis (confession cleanses the soul), I imagine I could happily have voted for Joe Biden, but as it is, I am not a happy camper.

There are, I believe, very serious problems facing the country and the world. My life is comfortable enough that I am not really worried about whether I have to pay more taxes to make things right. But paying more taxes does not always make things right.
Fundamentally, I want someone with good values, good skills, and good judgment. As of now, I'm thinking McCain may come closest to fitting these requirements.


I'm open to thoughts.


Ken

[jtfanclub]

kenberg, on Jan 18 2008, 10:52 AM, said:

As to John Edwards, I have listened to an interview with his wife and I think she would be one of our finest First Ladies.

Unfortunately, she has active breast cancer. I don't know how long she'll be with us.

I agree with you...I can't believe that the first three eliminated from the Democrats were Biden, Dodd, and Richardson.

I think Obama will surround himself with competent people and not actually do much during his presidency except sound confident and bring us hope. I'll take that.

[Cascade]

joshs, on Jan 16 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

I think the media really misportrayed Dean last time

Don't the media misportray everyone everytime?

I thought that was their job.

[han]

I didn't know much about Ron Paul, so I read the link the wikipedia article that Luke Warm provided. While I disagree with him on virtually every single issue except war, he seemed fairly consistent and honest. Of course, the honest part may depend very much on whose article you read.

I was somewhat disappointed that he mixed his libertarian and freedom of religion positions with his pro-life position. That's not consistent to my mind. Should I see this as an attempt to lure religious voters or is he serious about that? Maybe I misinterpret freedom of religion.

[luke warm]

Hannie, on Jan 18 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I didn't know much about Ron Paul, so I read the link the wikipedia article that Luke Warm provided. While I disagree with him on virtually every single issue except war, he seemed fairly consistent and honest. Of course, the honest part may depend very much on whose article you read.

I was somewhat disappointed that he mixed his libertarian and freedom of religion positions with his pro-life position. That's not consistent to my mind. Should I see this as an attempt to lure religious voters or is he serious about that? Maybe I misinterpret freedom of religion.

well nobody's the perfect candidate, and besides i doubt if paul makes too many ballots... but i do have a peculiar libertarian streak running thru me and i do happen to believe that the fed gov't should only step in when the state gov't takes unconstitutional and/or irresponsible action... it's too late now, but there was a time when a week fed/relatively strong state gov't was not only mandated but practiced

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Jan 18 2008, 05:10 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 18 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

I didn't know much about Ron Paul, so I read the link the wikipedia article that Luke Warm provided. While I disagree with him on virtually every single issue except war, he seemed fairly consistent and honest. Of course, the honest part may depend very much on whose article you read.

I was somewhat disappointed that he mixed his libertarian and freedom of religion positions with his pro-life position. That's not consistent to my mind. Should I see this as an attempt to lure religious voters or is he serious about that? Maybe I misinterpret freedom of religion.

well nobody's the perfect candidate, and besides i doubt if paul makes too many ballots... but i do have a peculiar libertarian streak running thru me and i do happen to believe that the fed gov't should only step in when the state gov't takes unconstitutional and/or irresponsible action... it's too late now, but there was a time when a week fed/relatively strong state gov't was not only mandated but practiced

Perhaps an item for amusement on states vs federal government roles. Back quite a bit when I took a job at the University of Maryland I was told I needed to sign a loyalty oath. To my surprise it had little or nothing about me not being a Communist but instead I signed an oath agreeing to defend the State of Maryland against invasion by neighboring states. If Pennsylvania (part of the Northern scum, according to our state song) ever invades I am legally bound to defend Maryland! Incidentally, when my more liberal friends talk of the horror of loyalty oaths and I remind them of this they plead loss of memory. It's a pretty good bet that they signed the same stupid thing I signed.

As to Ron Paul, a friend of mine is a fan. Other than that, my friend seems quite sane.