Hillary finally quits

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
45 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Hillary finally quits

Daniel Carrera-2
A spokesman for Hillary says that she will leave the race and back Obama
for president:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

I have to say "it's about time". Am glad she didn't drag this on all the
way to the convention, but I think she's already done some damage by
keeping the party divided for so long. I hope it doesn't cost them the
white house. I don't want another 4 years of McBush policies.

Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Rod Engelsman
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Carrera <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A spokesman for Hillary says that she will leave the race and back Obama
> for president:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm
>
> I have to say "it's about time". Am glad she didn't drag this on all the
> way to the convention, but I think she's already done some damage by keeping
> the party divided for so long. I hope it doesn't cost them the white house.
> I don't want another 4 years of McBush policies.
>
> Daniel.
>


You and me both, Daniel. When it became apparent that this was becoming a
battle between the first truly viable female candidate and the first truly
viable black candidate I thought, "Oh, no. Why does this have to happen now?
And at the same time?"

Fortunately, McSame is a fairly weak candidate for the Rebugnicans. They got
their ugly prejudice-based politics out of the way last winter. We've had to
suffer through it all the way. It's sad, but inevitable I suppose.

Rod
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hillary finally quits

Pat McBride
Obviously, Rod and Daniel, you guys are not Republicans.  However, we in
Canada are blessed with a Conservative government, even if it's a minority
one.  After too many years of Liberal (probably the same as your Democratic
party) mismanagement and scandal, we're finally starting to see the light at
the end of the tunnel.  And it ain't a train or semi coming the other way.

Now, if only we could get a good government here in B.C. we'd be laughing.
We've had the New Democratic??? (read Socialist) party for too long, and now
we've got [Gordon Campbell And The Liberals] (sounds like a rock group)  to
lead the province up the garden path.

:) :) :)We Celts, particularly in Scotland, don't trust the Campbells;
they're a treacherous bunch, looking out only for themselves, and you can't
trust them as far as you can see them; if they're behind your back, wear
body armour.   :) :) :)

Good luck, and I hope that your next government is one that you deserve.

Ain't politics fun????? -:(

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Rod Engelsman [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 2008/06/05 06:18
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [social] Hillary finally quits


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Carrera <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> A spokesman for Hillary says that she will leave the race and back Obama
> for president:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm
>
> I have to say "it's about time". Am glad she didn't drag this on all the
> way to the convention, but I think she's already done some damage by
keeping
> the party divided for so long. I hope it doesn't cost them the white
house.
> I don't want another 4 years of McBush policies.
>
> Daniel.
>


You and me both, Daniel. When it became apparent that this was becoming a
battle between the first truly viable female candidate and the first truly
viable black candidate I thought, "Oh, no. Why does this have to happen now?
And at the same time?"

Fortunately, McSame is a fairly weak candidate for the Rebugnicans. They got
their ugly prejudice-based politics out of the way last winter. We've had to
suffer through it all the way. It's sad, but inevitable I suppose.

Rod

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1484 - Release Date: 08/06/04
16:40


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Robert Derman
Pat McBride wrote:

> Obviously, Rod and Daniel, you guys are not Republicans.  However, we in
> Canada are blessed with a Conservative government, even if it's a minority
> one.  After too many years of Liberal (probably the same as your Democratic
> party) mismanagement and scandal, we're finally starting to see the light at
> the end of the tunnel.  And it ain't a train or semi coming the other way.
>
> Now, if only we could get a good government here in B.C. we'd be laughing.
> We've had the New Democratic??? (read Socialist) party for too long, and now
> we've got [Gordon Campbell And The Liberals] (sounds like a rock group)  to
> lead the province up the garden path.
>
> :) :) :)We Celts, particularly in Scotland, don't trust the Campbells;
> they're a treacherous bunch, looking out only for themselves, and you can't
> trust them as far as you can see them; if they're behind your back, wear
> body armour.   :) :) :)
>
> Good luck, and I hope that your next government is one that you deserve.
>
> Ain't politics fun????? -:(
>
> Pat
>  
The trouble with our American Republican Party is not that it is
conservative, but that it is totally owned by big business special
interests.  We badly need a constitutional amendment that forbids
spending any kind of non-government sourced money on political
campaigns, so that elected representatives would never be in need of
financing from businesses or organizations of any kind.  Also the
Republicans have welcomed  too many religious groups and other special
interests into their party.  These groups have dragged the party further
and further to the right over the last few years.  It has gotten to the
point that anyone who seriously thinks about what is going on can no
longer support the party.  I used to be a card-carrying member of the
Republican Party, but it just isn't the same party that it used to be!

Also I feel that any political party that would even nominate anyone as
incompetent as Bush Jr.  deserves no support or consideration from the
people.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Smoot Carl-Mitchell
In reply to this post by Daniel Carrera-2
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 11:01 +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> A spokesman for Hillary says that she will leave the race and back Obama
> for president:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm
>
> I have to say "it's about time". Am glad she didn't drag this on all the
> way to the convention, but I think she's already done some damage by
> keeping the party divided for so long. I hope it doesn't cost them the
> white house. I don't want another 4 years of McBush policies.

This primary was mild by most standards.  What we had was basically a
tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation.  In a winner take all
system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday.
However, the Democratic party set the rules and Obama won under the
existing rules.  I see most Democrats getting behind Obama, once the
passions of the primary cool down a bit and Democrats realize what a
policy disaster McCain and the Republicans really are to core Democratic
Party ideals.

I do not think Clinton did Obama any significant damage.  In fact I
think she made him a better candidate by preparing him for what is to
come. The Republicans will pull out all the stops this fall.  We saw a
preview in McCain's speech on Tuesday.  McCain will attempt to stay
above the fray, but he will let his surrogates do the dirty work of
raising race and Obama's background as issues.  We already see this in
the false claim that Obama is a Muslim or he is not a "real" American
because his middle name is Hussein.

Clinton is doing the right thing by endorsing him on Saturday.
Basically, the party leadership forced her to make that decision now.
She will abide by it because she does not want to damage her future in
the Democratic Party.  It will be interesting to see what comes out of
the horse trading with the Obama folks.  Perhaps she will become the
Majority Leader in the Senate which is a far more powerful position than
VP.  I think she will end up like Ted Kennedy as an extremely competent
and beloved Senator.
--
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
System/Network Architect
[hidden email]
+1 480 922 7313
cell: +1 602 421 9005

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hillary finally quits

Pat McBride
In reply to this post by Robert Derman
Yeah, I agree.  But what political party isn't supported by some vested
interest; the Liberals and Conservatives are tied into business up here, and
the Liberals in particular are tied so tight to Quebec that when Quebec
farts the Liberals apologize.  Most of the Liberal cabinet ministers are
either from Quebec or are French speaking, lets face it, they have to be.
And the New Democratic (huh, what was that word?) are tied into the labour
movement, the various teachers federations, the gay movement, and any other
left-wing movement that exists.  That's why British Columbia is in such a
sorry state, years of NDP mismanagement, followed by years of Liberal
mismanagement, and we've finally got a government in Ottawa that's
Conservative.

After years of different Canadian governments neglecting the Armed Forces,
our present Prime Minister has developed a plan that will increase the size,
pay, structure, and equipment of all 3, Army gets new tanks and ground
fighting equipment [a strike helicoter is on the TOE for the Army, we have
them practicising around here all the time], the Navy gets some up-to-date
ships and aircraft, and the Air Force gets new fighters, ground support
aircraft, transport aircraft, and reconnaisance birds.  I've served in the
Army, in the militia which is the equivalent of your Reserves, while in the
police service.  I had to use my police weapons training to train my platoon
in the use of semi-automatic and hand-held weapons, because our training
manuals mostly came from the First and Second World Wars.  I mean, standing
upright, holding your pistol in one hand, and aiming to your right or
left???????  Target practice for the bad guys; fortunately our battalion
C.O. saw it that way, and allowed me to do it.

You guys were lucky with Reagan and Bush, Senior.  Why he let Bubba, or
whatever, run for President is a question that only he can answer, and I
think he's ashamed to.  He really dun good in Iraq, I understand why they
didn't go into Baghdad; they'd have the same problems that they're having
right now, so he listened to Colin Powell and did the right thing.  So
Junior decides to go macho and one-up Dad; what's he get ---- the product
from the south end of a north bound mule.   And it serves him right!

You guys had Eisenhower and Truman, history's proven that you were really
lucky.  Kennedy wasn't bad, but his support for VietNam was a huge mistake.
If Eisenhower had taken Ho Chi Minh under his wing in the 1950s, as Ho asked
him to do, think of the lives that would have been saved.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me to vent.  I hope for the sake of your
country, and the whole damn world, that whoever gets in is a good President,
keeps his head about him and listens to the right people, and remembers that
the United States is right now the number one power in the world, with China
rapidly becoming the second.

Take care,

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Derman [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 2008/06/05 09:25
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [social] Hillary finally quits


Pat McBride wrote:
> Obviously, Rod and Daniel, you guys are not Republicans.  However, we in
> Canada are blessed with a Conservative government, even if it's a minority
> one.  After too many years of Liberal (probably the same as your
Democratic
> party) mismanagement and scandal, we're finally starting to see the light
at
> the end of the tunnel.  And it ain't a train or semi coming the other way.
>
> Now, if only we could get a good government here in B.C. we'd be laughing.
> We've had the New Democratic??? (read Socialist) party for too long, and
now
> we've got [Gordon Campbell And The Liberals] (sounds like a rock group)
to
> lead the province up the garden path.
>
> :) :) :)We Celts, particularly in Scotland, don't trust the Campbells;
> they're a treacherous bunch, looking out only for themselves, and you
can't
> trust them as far as you can see them; if they're behind your back, wear
> body armour.   :) :) :)
>
> Good luck, and I hope that your next government is one that you deserve.
>
> Ain't politics fun????? -:(
>
> Pat
>
The trouble with our American Republican Party is not that it is
conservative, but that it is totally owned by big business special
interests.  We badly need a constitutional amendment that forbids
spending any kind of non-government sourced money on political
campaigns, so that elected representatives would never be in need of
financing from businesses or organizations of any kind.  Also the
Republicans have welcomed  too many religious groups and other special
interests into their party.  These groups have dragged the party further
and further to the right over the last few years.  It has gotten to the
point that anyone who seriously thinks about what is going on can no
longer support the party.  I used to be a card-carrying member of the
Republican Party, but it just isn't the same party that it used to be!

Also I feel that any political party that would even nominate anyone as
incompetent as Bush Jr.  deserves no support or consideration from the
people.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1484 - Release Date: 08/06/04
16:40


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Daniel Carrera-2
In reply to this post by Pat McBride
Pat McBride wrote:
> Obviously, Rod and Daniel, you guys are not Republicans.  However, we in
> Canada are blessed with a Conservative government, even if it's a minority
> one.

Keep in mind that Canada's "conservative" would be considered ultra
liberal in the US. This whole deal about having universal health care is
quite left-wing for US standards.

> (probably the same as your Democratic party)

*my* Democratic party? This is the second time you act like I am in the
US. How many times do I need to tell you that I am not an American?

As for mismanagement, there is nothing left-wing or right-wing about
mismanagement. Anyone can mismanage. The Bush administration proves that
bad decisions are not exclusively the realm of left-wing parties.


> Good luck, and I hope that your next government is one that you deserve.

I really wish you would stop implying that I am an American. WHY oh WHY
do you do that? Have I give you any indication as to where I live or
what my nationality is? You are not in the US, so why should I be?

Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Daniel Carrera-2
In reply to this post by Smoot Carl-Mitchell
Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> This primary was mild by most standards.  What we had was basically a
> tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation.  In a winner take all
> system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday.

I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.

> I do not think Clinton did Obama any significant damage.

I hope you are right.

> In fact I
> think she made him a better candidate by preparing him for what is to
> come. The Republicans will pull out all the stops this fall.  We saw a
> preview in McCain's speech on Tuesday.  McCain will attempt to stay
> above the fray, but he will let his surrogates do the dirty work of
> raising race and Obama's background as issues.  We already see this in
> the false claim that Obama is a Muslim or he is not a "real" American
> because his middle name is Hussein.

And let's not forget the crime of not wearing a flag pin or not putting
his hand on his chest when they sing the national anthem.


> Perhaps she will become the Majority Leader in the Senate which is a
> far more powerful position than VP.

And doesn't have the problem of her being Obama's running mate. I hope
he picks John Edwards.

Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

John W Kennedy-2
In reply to this post by Smoot Carl-Mitchell
On Jun 5, 2008, at 2:35 PM, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> I do not think Clinton did Obama any significant damage.  In fact I
> think she made him a better candidate by preparing him for what is to
> come.

That's why I hope they'll go with her as Veep. Obama is still too  
willing to assume that a Republican is capable of basic human decency.  
He needs an attack dog.

At least he's learned not to trust everyone who calls himself a  
"Christian".

--
John W Kennedy
"Though a Rothschild you may be
In your own capacity,
     As a Company you've come to utter sorrow--
But the Liquidators say,
'Never mind--you needn't pay,'
     So you start another company to-morrow!"
   -- Sir William S. Gilbert.  "Utopia Limited"




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Smoot Carl-Mitchell
In reply to this post by Daniel Carrera-2
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 02:06 +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> > This primary was mild by most standards.  What we had was basically a
> > tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation.  In a winner take all
> > system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday.
>
> I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.

I agree, but our Electroal College system is winner take all by state.
An argument can be made that a winner take all primary system reflects
the current Electoral College reality.  Personally, I would like to see
the Electoral College abolished and replaced with a popular vote system.

> And doesn't have the problem of her being Obama's running mate. I hope
> he picks John Edwards.

I want to see Edwards as Attorney General.  He would be terrific in that
position.
--
Smoot Carl-Mitchell
System/Network Architect
[hidden email]
+1 480 922 7313
cell: +1 602 421 9005

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Rod Engelsman
In reply to this post by Daniel Carrera-2
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Daniel Carrera <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
>
>> This primary was mild by most standards.  What we had was basically a
>> tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation.  In a winner take all
>> system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday.
>>
>
> I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.
>

It depends on how much "all" there is to take. If the prize is a single seat
(a representative, for example) then winner-take-all is inevitable.  On a
larger scale, our overall system of governance always was a compromise to
hammer out a union among a number of inherently unequal states. IIRC, Europe
had every bit as much trouble putting together a confederate system for the
EU, with similar results. In fact there is quite a bit of similarity between
the U.S. of 1800 and the present day EU as far as the system of governance
goes.

Our real undemocratic institutions are the Senate (2 seats per state,
regardless of size or population) and by extension, the Electoral College.
But as originally designed our Federal government was envisioned to be about
as relevant to your daily life as the U.N. is to your life today -- i.e.,
hardly at all. So absolute, per-person, democracy wasn't as important a
consideration as just getting the thing done.


>
> Perhaps she will become the Majority Leader in the Senate which is a
>> far more powerful position than VP.
>>
>
>
I've heard suggestions about putting her on the Supreme Court. Talk about a
permanent bee in the Repub's bonnet!


> And doesn't have the problem of her being Obama's running mate. I hope he
> picks John Edwards.
>
> Daniel


 My understanding is that Edwards isn't interested. There are a lot of good
and interesting choices out there. My governor from Kansas, Kathleen
Sebelius, is apparently on the short list. I love the woman; I think she'd
be fantastic.

Rod
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Rod Engelsman
In reply to this post by Smoot Carl-Mitchell
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:55 PM, Smoot Carl-Mitchell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 02:06 +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> > Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> > > This primary was mild by most standards.  What we had was basically a
> > > tie, due to the proportional delegate allocation.  In a winner take all
> > > system by state, Clinton would have easily won on Super Tuesday.
> >
> > I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.
>
> I agree, but our Electroal College system is winner take all by state.


More by evolution than design. Maine and Nebraska can split their votes (I
think one is purely proportional and the other goes by Congressional
district) but rarely do (in fact I don't know if they ever have).


>
> An argument can be made that a winner take all primary system reflects
> the current Electoral College reality.


Sort of. But only if you believe that the Clinton supporters in the states
she won won't vote for Obama in the fall. That may be the case for a couple
of the rust-belt Appalachian states, where, sadly, racism played an overt
role in her victories. The reality is that some states will vote Democratic
no matter who the candidate is and vice versa. The ones that are really
important in regard to the general election are the swing states.

It's going to be an interesting election season: An old white republican
who's sort of weak with the Rep core but appealing to a lot of independents
vs. a young, charismatic black democrat who's also appealing to independents
while being weak among certain elements of the Dem core.

I think Edwards would have been the stronger candidate in the fall (vs.
Obama or Clinton) but the Republicans are in such a weak position that this
may just be the time to make history nonetheless.


>  Personally, I would like to see
> the Electoral College abolished and replaced with a popular vote system.


Agree.


>
>
> > And doesn't have the problem of her being Obama's running mate. I hope
> > he picks John Edwards.
>
> I want to see Edwards as Attorney General.  He would be terrific in that
> position.
>

Oh, yeah! That'll make the country-club Republicans sweat!


Rod
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Jonathon Blake
In reply to this post by Pat McBride
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Pat McBride wrote:

> Now, if only we could get a good government here in B.C. we'd be laughing.

Don't the BC Government officials resign their office, prior to being
arrested? Unlike certain state and federal officials in the US.

xan

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Jonathon Blake
In reply to this post by Pat McBride
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Pat McBride wrote:

> After years of different Canadian governments neglecting the Armed Forces,

To call it neglect is to be extremely charitable.

This is the armed force that literally had to resort to bake sales to
buy ammo for training purposes.

> our present Prime Minister has developed a plan that will increase the size, pay, structure, and equipment of all 3,

Will his budget take into account his plans?  Give the history of the
Canadian budget for its armed forces, I doubt that will happen.
(Canadian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are there, courtesy of the
united states taxpayer.)

> the United States is right now the number one power in the world, with China rapidly becoming the second.

China has more military personnel than the united states.  The united
states has more ships, planes, and missiles.

The only chance the united states has of "winning" a war is to go
nuclear.  (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, have proven that the united
states will lose a ground war.  Cambodia demonstrated that the united
states can only draw an air war, even if they have air superiority. )
(During WW2 when the  Japanese admirals used the YiJing, they won
their battles.  When they didn't use the YiJing, they lost their
battles.)


John wrote:

>That's why I hope they'll go with her as Veep.

It depends upon which way the press turns.  Thus far, the press has
treated Obama with kid gloves.  In Beaverton, Oregon, Obama said he
had visited 57 of the states of the united states, during his
campaign. Most of the national media ignored that comment.  The
Organization of Islamic Conference has 57 states in its membership.

xan

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Daniel Carrera-2
In reply to this post by Smoot Carl-Mitchell
Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
> Personally, I would like to see
> the Electoral College abolished and replaced with a popular vote system.

I would too. Now, I understand if the US wants to give extra weight to
small states, and that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But there
are ways to do that without the Electoral College. For instance, you
could make it so that one vote in Montana is worth 10 votes in
California. So votes from different states have different weights
depending on whatever formula the US deems appropriate.

I think that would actually be a very fair system.

Cheers,
Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Daniel Carrera-2
In reply to this post by Rod Engelsman
Rod Engelsman wrote:
>> I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.
>
> It depends on how much "all" there is to take. If the prize is a single seat
> (a representative, for example) then winner-take-all is inevitable.

Well, yes. But you know that I'm talking about the Electoral College.
Having a single guy take all the points from Florida because he got
50.001% of the popular vote is not fair.

> On a larger scale, our overall system of governance always was a
> compromise to hammer out a union among a number of inherently unequal
> states.

And that's all fine and good, but the Electoral College does nothing to
further this goal. For example, maybe you want to give extra weight to
small states so they don't get overrun by the big states. A winner take
all system does nothing for that. The only reason why the current system
gives more weight to small states is because small states get more
delegates per-capita. But you can get that without a winner take all
system (e.g. like the Democrat primaries).


> IIRC, Europe
> had every bit as much trouble putting together a confederate system for the
> EU, with similar results.

But notice that Europe does not have a winner-take-all system. Except
for when there is only one delegate to choose (e.g. country presidents).


> Our real undemocratic institutions are the Senate (2 seats per state,
> regardless of size or population) and by extension, the Electoral College.

The European Council of Ministers is one minister per country. So it has
the same problem as the US Senate. This wouldn't be bad if the EU
Parliament had more power. You could argue there are benefits to having
two bodies, one that follows population and one that gives equal weight
to everyone, who have to get along with each other and compromise.


> But as originally designed our Federal government was envisioned to be about
> as relevant to your daily life as the U.N. is to your life today -- i.e.,
> hardly at all. So absolute, per-person, democracy wasn't as important a
> consideration as just getting the thing done.

Indeed. If the Federal government was also as small as the founders
intended, then the system wouldn't be a problem.

Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Hillary finally quits

Rod Engelsman
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Daniel Carrera <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Rod Engelsman wrote:
>
>> I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic.
>>>
>>
>> It depends on how much "all" there is to take. If the prize is a single
>> seat
>> (a representative, for example) then winner-take-all is inevitable.
>>
>
> Well, yes. But you know that I'm talking about the Electoral College.
> Having a single guy take all the points from Florida because he got 50.001%
> of the popular vote is not fair.


Not as unfair as actually getting 49.999% and then having the re-counts
stopped by the Federal Supreme Court before the truth could be discovered.



>
>
>  On a larger scale, our overall system of governance always was a
>> compromise to hammer out a union among a number of inherently unequal
>> states.
>>
>
> And that's all fine and good, but the Electoral College does nothing to
> further this goal. For example, maybe you want to give extra weight to small
> states so they don't get overrun by the big states. A winner take all system
> does nothing for that. The only reason why the current system gives more
> weight to small states is because small states get more delegates
> per-capita. But you can get that without a winner take all system (e.g. like
> the Democrat primaries).
>

But the "more weight" part is the patently undemocratic aspect of it. And it
was designed that way not because everybody thought the residents of small
states should get more weight, but as a concession to the small states so
they would agree to join the union.

You also have to remember that originally there was no national presidential
election much less national primaries. The electoral college was chosen by
the state legislatures (as were the Senators) and they were sent to
Washington with no set preference for any particular candidate. So the
people didn't decide who would be president, nor even did the state
legislatures directly; the EC was supposed to be a group of erudite fellows
who would make that decision on our behalf.

Things have changed. The Senate is now chosen by popular vote and the EC
delegations effectively are as well, but the latter is a choice that has
been made by each of the 50 states individually. Officially, the EC is still
chosen by the legislatures so it actually would have been entirely
legitimate for the Florida legislature in 2000 to have just passed a
resolution awarding all their delegates to GW completely bypassing the
voters and the courts. Political suicide, but legitimate.


>
>
>
>  IIRC, Europe
>> had every bit as much trouble putting together a confederate system for
>> the
>> EU, with similar results.
>>
>
> But notice that Europe does not have a winner-take-all system. Except for
> when there is only one delegate to choose (e.g. country presidents).
>
>
>  Our real undemocratic institutions are the Senate (2 seats per state,
>> regardless of size or population) and by extension, the Electoral College.
>>
>
> The European Council of Ministers is one minister per country. So it has
> the same problem as the US Senate. This wouldn't be bad if the EU Parliament
> had more power. You could argue there are benefits to having two bodies, one
> that follows population and one that gives equal weight to everyone, who
> have to get along with each other and compromise.
>

I would actually argue for three -- a Senate as originally chosen by the
State \governments and a House of Reps like we have now, plus a Parliament
consisting of a set number of seats that are allocated by national political
party strength. That would set a place at the table for minority opinions
like the Greens and the Libertarians. But it would be almost impossible to
pass any legislation if all three bodies plus the President had to sign on.


Rod
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hillary finally quits

Pat McBride
In reply to this post by Daniel Carrera-2
No, I don't mean to say that you're an American; but I believe that I can
safely assume from your comments, which are quite accurate and timely, that
you're a citizen of the World and have an active political outlook on
situations that can affect the world as a whole.

The comment about 'your Democratic party' is a general comment, directed to
any Americans who read these threads.  My Dad was American, of an older
generation, and took Canadian Citizenship when he came to Canada in 1939 to
fight with the Canadian Army in World War II.  He had served in the American
Army, his training there served to be of great value when I talked about him
with members of our regiment; they said that it was his training them that
kept them alive during the war.

Anyway, we both live on Planet Earth; it's my belief that we are responsible
for all that heppens, environment, wars of any size, political and religious
relationships,  taking care of others involved in natural disasters.  If we
vote for the best candidate and political party with the approriate outlook
on those topics, we'll have done our job as citizens.  The most important
role we have, and one that most people neglect for whatever reason, is to
get out and vote.  We have that freedom in most countries, it shouldn't be
abused, and its up to us to make sure that it isn't.

Best wishes,

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Carrera [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 2008/06/05 17:00
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [social] Hillary finally quits


Pat McBride wrote:
> Obviously, Rod and Daniel, you guys are not Republicans.  However, we in
> Canada are blessed with a Conservative government, even if it's a minority
> one.

Keep in mind that Canada's "conservative" would be considered ultra
liberal in the US. This whole deal about having universal health care is
quite left-wing for US standards.

> (probably the same as your Democratic party)

*my* Democratic party? This is the second time you act like I am in the
US. How many times do I need to tell you that I am not an American?

As for mismanagement, there is nothing left-wing or right-wing about
mismanagement. Anyone can mismanage. The Bush administration proves that
bad decisions are not exclusively the realm of left-wing parties.


> Good luck, and I hope that your next government is one that you deserve.

I really wish you would stop implying that I am an American. WHY oh WHY
do you do that? Have I give you any indication as to where I live or
what my nationality is? You are not in the US, so why should I be?

Daniel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1487 - Release Date: 08/06/06
08:01


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hillary finally quits

Pat McBride
In reply to this post by Jonathon Blake
No, we think that someone is innocent, until proven guilty.  However, with most politicians and government officials, as soon as they open their mouths, they're guilty.  What of can contain - stupidity, immorality, Being A Politican In A Public Place (Sec. 12345 of the To-Be Revised Section of the Criminal Code of Canada -:) -:), I wish), general mopery and dopery including public and private malfeasance.

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 2008/06/05 19:37
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [social] Hillary finally quits


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Pat McBride wrote:

> Now, if only we could get a good government here in B.C. we'd be laughing.

Don't the BC Government officials resign their office, prior to being
arrested? Unlike certain state and federal officials in the US.

xan

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1487 - Release Date: 08/06/06 08:01


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Hillary finally quits

Pat McBride
In reply to this post by Jonathon Blake
Yeah, well, the bake sales were for the Cadets and some small Militia groups.  In Seaforth, we had no problems with ammo; including grenades, AT rounds, m/g ammunition, battle simulators, and rounds for the Carl Gustav (which, IMHOP, is a great weapon, does everything but make the coffee).  Only problem we had was with the rations, when we got them they had stamps saying 'Rejected by the Ethiopian Army'.

Harper's latest budget, and he's one guy that doesn't conform to my opinion of politicians for a number of reasons, allowed for the expansion of the Armed Forces and the upgrading of the TOE.  And his amendments to the Criminal Code are something else, raising the age of consent, locking up sex offenders until hell freezes over, changing the juvenile laws, making defense lawyers pay court costs when the client if found guilty (-:), -:), don't we all wish), bringing back flogging on the hatch covers (I'm kidding, it was hanging at the yardarm or death by firing squad).

Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathon [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: 2008/06/05 20:07
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [social] Hillary finally quits


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Pat McBride wrote:

> After years of different Canadian governments neglecting the Armed Forces,

To call it neglect is to be extremely charitable.

This is the armed force that literally had to resort to bake sales to
buy ammo for training purposes.

> our present Prime Minister has developed a plan that will increase the size, pay, structure, and equipment of all 3,

Will his budget take into account his plans?  Give the history of the
Canadian budget for its armed forces, I doubt that will happen.
(Canadian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are there, courtesy of the
united states taxpayer.)

> the United States is right now the number one power in the world, with China rapidly becoming the second.

China has more military personnel than the united states.  The united
states has more ships, planes, and missiles.

The only chance the united states has of "winning" a war is to go
nuclear.  (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, have proven that the united
states will lose a ground war.  Cambodia demonstrated that the united
states can only draw an air war, even if they have air superiority. )
(During WW2 when the  Japanese admirals used the YiJing, they won
their battles.  When they didn't use the YiJing, they lost their
battles.)


John wrote:

>That's why I hope they'll go with her as Veep.

It depends upon which way the press turns.  Thus far, the press has
treated Obama with kid gloves.  In Beaverton, Oregon, Obama said he
had visited 57 of the states of the united states, during his
campaign. Most of the national media ignored that comment.  The
Organization of Islamic Conference has 57 states in its membership.

xan

jonathon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1487 - Release Date: 08/06/06 08:01



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

123