| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And people need to understand that.
The most effective way to get people to understand is not to lecture and preach.
What is effective is to start running for local township and city councils. To elect candidates to the school board, to elect like]minded people to the county commission.
At the local level, people are much more likely to ignore party labels and to vote for the person they've met and talked with, even worked with on community projects and charity organizations.
Once you've got a bunch of like-minded people in office at the local level, they can then build up to the state and national level seats based on their ideas and effectiveness in actually making a difference at the local level.
Posting comments on an international forum is not going to effect change. If you can't run yourself, find someone who will and manage their campaign for them. But the only way you're going to get a 3rd party on the national ballot is to have that party have plenty of support precinct by precinct at the local level
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a dingus, but everyone reading this knows the difference between a Fiduciary and a Financial Counselor, right?Kind of. I don't have either one, so I haven't boned up recently.
What does it have to do with Johnson's economic policies?
I'll let John Oliver explain the difference. It has to do with retirement planning, not Johnson's policies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a dingus, but everyone reading this knows the difference between a Fiduciary and a Financial Counselor, right?
as hiring either would cost more than it would get me, no.
And people need to understand that.The most effective way to get people to understand is not to lecture and preach.
What is effective is to start running for local township and city councils. To elect candidates to the school board, to elect like]minded people to the county commission.
At the local level, people are much more likely to ignore party labels and to vote for the person they've met and talked with, even worked with on community projects and charity organizations.
Once you've got a bunch of like-minded people in office at the local level, they can then build up to the state and national level seats based on their ideas and effectiveness in actually making a difference at the local level.
Posting comments on an international forum is not going to effect change. If you can't run yourself, find someone who will and manage their campaign for them. But the only way you're going to get a 3rd party on the national ballot is to have that party have plenty of support precinct by precinct at the local level
Yes you will need support at the local level, but all the support in the world will be meaningless if you don't change the voting at the national level. That literally has to happen first. Or your third party will be born, grow a little and eventually die. All the local groundswell in the world wont change the fact that Bernie HAS to try to get his supporters to support Hilary even if in reality he and his following is a 3rd party when compared to the 'mainstream' democratic party.
Depends on which model you select. Some people are willing to pay a percentage of their investments to have someone else do that. Other people manage their own accounts. Currently in the US, both options are possible.
There are businesses which will simply use their license to buy and sell the stocks and/or bonds you ask them to for a small fee. You can still have physical certificates sent to you. You can still buy US savings bonds through your bank.
Other business offer the 'don't worry your pretty little head" option, and skim a bit off the top of every account they manage. Depending on the company, the fees are either outrageous or reasonable.
How much do these various options cost? Give me figures. I don't care about some hypothetical "low cost" option, give me an example of a low cost option. Because I can respond with precise numbers on this, and I already know your "low cost" options are more expensive then the one I'm going to suggest. But if you can't support your argument with actual figures, I'm not going to bother offering them.
Sell me on how we can save money by putting up numbers. Don't tell me "it could be possible". Show me how. No numbers = fairy tale.
Also, you should just admit it. Your idea puts more money in the hands of Wall Street. Wall Street is the major driver of the private investment industry in this country, so no matter what, they will get more money. If you have proof they won't, I'm willing to hear it, but seeing as they control most of that market, I won't believe it without actual evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your vote on election day is actually the least significant political tool you possess as a citizen.
Huh. Citizen Betts said something I agree with.
[Marks calendar]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's essentially what Sanders tried to do, but I'd take Koloktroni's advice and work from the bottom up. Get those Sanders supporters together and get them to run for local offices. Volunteer to work for the party - help get those local candidates elected. Even work for...
Koloktroni said that would not work.
How much do these various options cost?
I use CharlesScwab. There are a number of others, but at the time I was setting up to do this, they were the cheapest.
You're talking too different things. You're suggesting killing Social Security entirely and talking about how people might invest on their own.
From my perspective, if the government takes money from my paycheck (or requires me to pay it when I pay my taxes [hello all you freelancers out there]), it doesn't matter. I see it as lost money that I may or may not ever see again in the form of retirement payments. It's just another tax, no matter what label is attached.
If I don't believe that the government is going to provide me with enough money to live on when I retire, I'll invest on my own. If the government actually gets around to sending me a check, then that's gravy.
I'm not suggesting that one form of government "management" is better or worse than another form. I'm a revolutionary: I think the government should provide every citizen with a minimum income and also provide single payer health care. How they do that is irrelevant until we get to that point. No use arguing about details of something that doesn't exist.
The word "should" is a red-flag that what I'm suggesting is a fantasy that has no current basis in reality.
So I cope with reality. It's up to me to make sure I have a place to sleep and food to eat and appropriate medical care when I retire. And it's up to me to attempt to influence the government so that everyone has the same security.
So I think the revolution has to start with running for school board, and city council, and county commission and state legislature. As I said earlier, if you don't think you're that person, be the campaign manager for that person. Make it happen.
Discussions on internet message boards are like Facebook 'likes'. They don't change the makeup of our elected boards and legislatures. Do something beyond feeling self righteous about how eloquent you are.
PS
Yes, I did that and got elected. You can too.
When 2/3 of the people don't vote because they're dissatisfied with the two options in front of them, I'd say 3rd parties have a place in our system. So many people say they don't vote for a third party because they can't possibly win - but considering how many Americans are independent, they actually can.
Whether in the long term they will remain, frankly, I don't care. (Okay, I do care, but not nearly as much as I care about this particular election having a third option.) All I care about is right now, I have two choices in front of me that are, to be blunt, horrible, and I absolutely, vehemently, and totally refuse to give a vote to either one of them. I'm absolutely not going to vote for someone I find a villain just because their opponent is a super villain.
You can do as you please. Just understand it's a protest vote with no practical effect.
I think you're fundamentally wrong, not just about Clinton, but about the American public. I'm not sure where you got the 2/3 don't vote from. In 2012 it was around 43% of eligible voters that didn't vote. Far too high, but not two thirds, either. I'd be shocked if turnout was nearly that much lower this time. The primary turnout was lower, but it always is.
That's also not necessarily because "they're dissatisfied with the two options in front of them", either. People have many reasons for not voting. Don't push your motivations on them. Nor assume that they'd find your third party better. Maybe they're just not paying attention (most likely). Maybe they're happy with the status quo and just don't care. Who knows.
More generally, as has been said here before, third parties not having a chance isn't a conspiracy and isn't because people think they can't win, it's a practical consequence of the system the founders set up, ironically partly to avoid the problems of parties.
For example I didn't vote in the Primary for one simple reason, I was perfectly happy to vote for either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Each had ideas I supported and ideas I didn't, but overwhelmingly agreed with both.
I have a slightly different angle on why I think 3rd parties do poorly here, while the structural reasons others have mentioned are certainly the case, it also seems to be the case that 3rd parties tend to be freaking nuts. Any good ideas the Libertarian party has are already supported by one of the major parties, all that's left is the crazy nonsense (the Fair Tax Plan for example, both unfair and terrible). Same is true for the Green party. Simply put, 3rd parties are by necessity more extreme in order to be able to carve out a niche for themselves.
From the Campaign Trail
Green Party's Stein takes message to Manchester, seeks disaffected Sanders supporters
Black Lives Matter rally in Manchester seeks justice, peace
"With election season drawing nearer, the event drew political attention. Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, was in the Granite State collecting signatures for her petition. She came out to support the protest and what it represents.
"'I think it’s so beautiful to see this outpouring of support for justice and to end violence and to end racism,' she said. 'And the events of this past week … just made the point how we cannot sit back and let this happen.
"'To see this incredible turnout here of people of all colors and all creeds coming together to say Black Lives Matter – we need this not just in words, but in actions.'"
How about we don't charge sales tax on food/groceries?
Every state I've ever lived in doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, has this conversation taken a turn where the libertarians who hate big government are in favor of the federal government dictating the items state government can and can't tax?
Wait, has this conversation taken a turn where the libertarians who hate big government are in favor of the federal government dictating the items state government can and can't tax?
True libertarians recognize that the state is a government too.
Every state I've ever lived in doesn't.
About 40% of the US states tax grocery items. You're lucky you've only lived in the states that don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hee hee!
I clicked on the state by state breakdown and was like, hey, where's New Hampshire?
Then I went, duh.
Live free or die!
For example I didn't vote in the Primary for one simple reason, I was perfectly happy to vote for either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. Each had ideas I supported and ideas I didn't, but overwhelmingly agreed with both.
I have a slightly different angle on why I think 3rd parties do poorly here, while the structural reasons others have mentioned are certainly the case, it also seems to be the case that 3rd parties tend to be freaking nuts. Any good ideas the Libertarian party has are already supported by one of the major parties, all that's left is the crazy nonsense (the Fair Tax Plan for example, both unfair and terrible). Same is true for the Green party. Simply put, 3rd parties are by necessity more extreme in order to be able to carve out a niche for themselves.
Its not really a matter of which ideas any one person thinks are 'good'. Its about getting representation. There obviously people who are super left or super right. They should be their own parties so they can get representation of their ideals. Rather then have a more moderate party be coopted in order to attempt to gain as much support as possible. I mean just look at all the presidential canditates who claimed to be 'republican' this primary cycle. There was like 5 parties worth of views in there. But because we can only ever have 2 parties, there is this absurb mish mash in both parties, but at the moment especially in the conservative party in the US.
My man-crush gets down with Jill:
Cornel West: Why I Endorse Green Party's Jill Stein Over "Neoliberal Disaster" Hillary Clinton
There was like 5 parties worth of views in there. But because we can only ever have 2 parties, there is this absurb mish mash in both parties, but at the moment especially in the conservative party in the US.
That inevitably drops out of the winner take all system we have. It will happen unless the system changes, the system keeps people in office, the people would have to vote to put themselves out of work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every state I've ever lived in doesn't.About 40% of the US states tax grocery items. You're lucky you've only lived in the states that don't.
Well, the odds are 60/40 in my favor, so maybe it's more accurate to say that thisr who do live in them are UNlucky. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not really a matter of which ideas any one person thinks are 'good'. Its about getting representation. There obviously people who are super left or super right.
So you can only be represented by someone who has the exact same views as you?
That's unworkable. There are only so many seats in Parliament. There are only so many candidates running for that seat. Unless you yourself are running, none of them will match your ideals perfectly. You are then afforded the opportunity to choose among several imperfect options -- one of the factors that makes a candidate imperfect is that she doesn't match your view on all points, but another factor might be that she is an unelectable fruitbat who wouldn't win if she were running unopposed. You are not only allowed, but encouraged, to take both of those factors into account.
... or you can wait until a perfect candidate can both run and win more than an extremely marginal share of the vote.
Bring a LONG book if you choose the second option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...
Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?
Not really relevant, but France don't use an electoral college to elect its president. It used to, before 1958, but the president was basically a figurehead devoid of any executive power (think the british queen, but elected).
Just to put things right, you may go on.
Edit : FYI, we had ten candidates at the last presidential elections (in 2012), and in the previous one (2007) a third-party candidate managed to break through to the second round (surprise protest vote, brexit style. Oops !).
Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...
Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?
Not really relevant, but France don't use an electoral college to elect its president. It used to, before 1958, but the president was basically a figurehead devoid of any executive power (think the british queen, but elected).
Just to put things right, you may go on.
Edit : FYI, we had ten candidates at the last presidential elections (in 2012), and in the previous one (2007) a third-party candidate managed to break through to the second round (surprise protest vote, brexit style. Oops !).
Ah, I see. Thanks for the correction. :)
Does France use direct voting nowadays? Or does it have anything similar to the electoral college system?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's on-topic for the off-topic discussion forum?
|
What's on-topic for the off-topic discussion forum?
Discussion of WWII was way off topic for this thread. This thread was started to discus American politics and the general dissatisfaction with the system and players. Political commentary has temporarily moved to the RNC thread, but may return here after the Democratic pep rally.
I don't know about investment being off topic; I bought some eldar shadow hunter escorts off Ebay UK for a cool $40 as compare to $70 on Ebay US, thanks mostly to the drop in value of the pound. That's the only way the Brexit has any effect on my life, outside entertainment value. (No offense UK readers.)
Edit: Whoopsy-daisy, wrong thread. It's still factual though, so l'm editing instead of deleting. :P
I'm going to start setting aside money just in case the dollar is still strong against the pound next Summer. I haven't been to England before and if lodging/food is 30-40% cheaper than usual, I want to go.
I'm going to start setting aside money just in case the dollar is still strong against the pound next Summer. I haven't been to England before and if lodging/food is 30-40% cheaper than usual, I want to go.
I remember reading somewhere that London was the most expensive city to live in the world, so I severely doubt anything in England there will be cheaper than...anywhere, really.
That's the way it works, right? We can judge entire nations by a single city? (If that were true, and I judged everyone I met in America by everyone I met from NYC, I would truly hate humanity more than I already do.)
...
...
...
Oh, right, on topic. The Johnson has officially inflated to a fat 13. He'll be pushing his way into the debates soon enough.
God, that sounds even dirtier on text than when I say it out loud.
Feel the Johnson.
EDIT: Johnson on Penn Jillette's show LINK
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, right, on topic. The Johnson has officially inflated to a fat 13.
Again, no, he hasn't.
And man, that was lurid.
He'll be pushing his way into the debates soon enough.
No, he probably won't be. He would literally need to double his support. It's akin to claiming that Clinton will be polling at 90% soon enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to start setting aside money just in case the dollar is still strong against the pound next Summer. I haven't been to England before and if lodging/food is 30-40% cheaper than usual, I want to go.I remember reading somewhere that London was the most expensive city to live in the world, so I severely doubt anything in England there will be cheaper than...anywhere, really.
That's the way it works, right? We can judge entire nations by a single city? (If that were true, and I judged everyone I met in America by everyone I met from NYC, I would truly hate humanity more than I already do.)
...
...
...Oh, right, on topic. The Johnson has officially inflated to a fat 13. He'll be pushing his way into the debates soon enough.
God, that sounds even dirtier on text than when I say it out loud.
It's not that London is cheap, it's that London is 27% cheaper than it was a year ago if you're spending US Dollars. I'd spend some time in London, but I'd be traveling around a lot. Gotta see all the places my Pendragon characters have died at!
|
Ah, yes... I keep forgetting the US and France still use electoral colleges...
Isn't it ironic how the two nations most associated with Freedom and Democracy and the only two democracies in the world to use such an obsolete election model?
Not really relevant, but France don't use an electoral college to elect its president. It used to, before 1958, but the president was basically a figurehead devoid of any executive power (think the british queen, but elected).
Just to put things right, you may go on.
Edit : FYI, we had ten candidates at the last presidential elections (in 2012), and in the previous one (2007) a third-party candidate managed to break through to the second round (surprise protest vote, brexit style. Oops !).
Ah, I see. Thanks for the correction. :)
Does France use direct voting nowadays? Or does it have anything similar to the electoral college system?
Direct voting with 2 turns : 1st turn votes designate the 2 top contenders. 2nd turn votes select between those 2
To be candidate for the first turn you need to collect the signature / endorsement of at least 500 elected officials from a variety of locations
Closer to the thread's topic, my main beef with the US election is that the Master of the World is elected every 4 years, but only Americans get to vote ;-p
|
|
I'm going to start setting aside money just in case the dollar is still strong against the pound next Summer. I haven't been to England before and if lodging/food is 30-40% cheaper than usual, I want to go.
I am heading out to Paris in Oct. I'll be making another trip to London. It is pricey, but can be done on a budget. Many of the museums there are free (donation boxes at door)and you can save on transportation if you are willing to walk or rent a bike. If you want more details PM me.
I hadn't really started thinking about until just a few days ago, and it won't be until next Summer, if it happens. My trip would be peppered with hiking/biking in the countryside, so I'm not too worried about cost. Hadrian's Wall and the John Muir Way are on the list of things to do.
Scotland passed a camping friendly law in 2003. You can camp on any unenclosed land as long as you don't damage it and don't leave trash. Biking and camping from distillery to distillery is going to be strongly considered. I did something similar recently for a road trip, staying at camp sites mostly and splurging on a nice hotel when I wanted a break from that and a hot shower.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not really a matter of which ideas any one person thinks are 'good'. Its about getting representation. There obviously people who are super left or super right.So you can only be represented by someone who has the exact same views as you?
That's unworkable. There are only so many seats in Parliament. There are only so many candidates running for that seat. Unless you yourself are running, none of them will match your ideals perfectly. You are then afforded the opportunity to choose among several imperfect options -- one of the factors that makes a candidate imperfect is that she doesn't match your view on all points, but another factor might be that she is an unelectable fruitbat who wouldn't win if she were running unopposed. You are not only allowed, but encouraged, to take both of those factors into account.
... or you can wait until a perfect candidate can both run and win more than an extremely marginal share of the vote.
Bring a LONG book if you choose the second option.
Obviously perfect representation is unlikely. But satisfactory representation is not. And while there only so many seats in a parlimant or the US house of representatives, there is certainly room for more then 2 ideaologies. And that is what we get in a pure first past the post system. Its worst in the US but its effects can be felt elsewhere too. A liberatarian voting in the US is a relatively concrete set of views, but he or she will basically never get solid representation because they have to share their party with economic conservatives, Evangelical Christians and Tea Partiers. And at least in recent years both parties have more or less walked in lock step because of how polarized they are.
Right now, 'Extremely Marginal' can equate to millions of people. Because each District, or constituency or whatever you want to call the local area of voters that picks a representative sends one and only one representative to the legislature, that means that most of the time, 40-50% of the population wont be represented by their 'local' representative. Literally Millions of voters in the US (and elsewhere) get their votes overridden by the local majority (or sometimes the largest minority) on a regular basis. That's not acceptable in a democratic system. And that is exclusively the fault of the voting system we have in place.
And don't get me started on the US presidential election system. Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely) is literally insane.