09 November

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2016, 03:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't see publicly funded elections changing much - the real grift and cronyism comes in the way of joining corporate or becoming a lobbyist after a political career....or getting paid millions for speeches and books.

The only real path to change is term limits to keep power from being concentrated among career politicians - that's the real influence for sale, and those transactions really aren't deposits to a campaign account.

How would term limits prevent elected officials from becoming lobbyists or writing books?

[fredtoast]

(10-23-2016, 08:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Interesting logic, indeed.  That's not what I said.  Try to follow along.

Okay I'll try to follow along.

First step.  You do admit that money influences who gets elected, right?

[djam]

Term limits sounds good but it will just speed up the process of being corrupt. The only REAL answer is people being informed and demanding politicians and even media be held accountable for their lies and corruption. Accountable. Of course this would take Americans actually being engaged and not just listening to what their favorite brand of talking heads feed them.

But its nothing but common sense, that if you want to government to represent 300 million peoples, then it has to be as small of a government as possible. Government bureaucracies have grown and grown and grown and none of them do anything really good, without also doing a lot of bad. The Federal government has grown too big and too powerful. Whoever cant see that, I worry about.

Voter ID would also obviously help a lot, especially after having what most of us already knew get totally exposed --that voter fraud is alive and well, and is a huge deal. I have to show my ID for a lot of things in life, and its not very hard to make it so that voters have to show them for that also. Funny how the democrats have made voter id's a racist idea, yet they were just exposed doing exactly the thing that makes it very important to have voter ID laws. The people they bus around to vote in different places, and all the dead people coming to life just to vote mostly or all democrat is absurd and criminal. Its not racist to ask for ID. Its time to do away with the emotionalization of everything and start using common sense and logic. Emotionalization is just a tactic and sadly it works on too many people.

There are many laws in which we would all agree on --dems, reps, libs, greens, etc...all the parties. Basically protecting life from murder, rape, theft, etc, etc. Those are all easy and we would all agree on them. Beyond that though, what does more laws do? They favor one group and not the other. Beyond the basic laws --the natural laws, its just a bidding war. It'a the 51% forcing their will on the 49%. No matter how you approach it, someone is getting screwed over. At one time there was a phrase written on the dollar. It said "Live And Let Live". I suggest people began to practice that in their own lives, and forget trying to use government to twist the world into your vision. Th government as it is today, does more harm than good. It gets in peoples way and holds them back. No favors for ANYONE no matter your race religion or gender is the only way to be fair to everyone, period. This would mean an end to lobbiest too, which would heal a lot.

[Dill]

(10-22-2016, 06:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Maybe if Congress was actually run like a business, but I don't see what we get for that experience. "Dealmaking" isn't that hard or difficult when you have good ideas in a non-partisan atmosphere.  Experience, as in experience on committees (and presumably based on some real life/business experience prior) is definitely great, but in Congress committee choice is more like "this will be fun for a bit" or "I have an interest in a bill coming thru there this year".

Political "experience" usually is about deal making, arm twisting, fundraising and ass kissing....and lying....I don't see where we get any real value from any of that.   When that's the qualification to get something done - again a lot because of power accumulated without term limits - what you don't have is a lot of qualified people CAPABLE of doing something good.

If Congress were run like a business, we wouldn't have a democracy. Running a government is far more complex. And voting for bad Congressmen is what puts unqualified people in Congress, and that occurs in part because people have so little civic knowledge, and because we have so much unaccountable money behind our elections.

Writing a bill that will get through Congress, and then getting it through, is no easy matter. "Experience" means that you know a lot of people personally, and those grey areas in their positions where you might get them to agree with something, what "bargains" they might accept in other legislation in return for support you want now. You know how constituencies or lobbyists constrain their votes. Experience also means that you know the machinery of government bureaucracy--don't need the boundaries of law constantly explained to you, as does the current Republican nominee. And it means that over time you have seen the unforeseen consequences of various combinations of statues. You not only know how to get bills passed, but you become better at foreseeing which ones should not be passed, even if they have support.

A Congress of members constantly re-inventing the wheel is a daunting prospect.

[Dill]

(10-23-2016, 12:46 PM)djam Wrote: Voter ID would also obviously help a lot, especially after having what most of us already knew get totally exposed --that voter fraud is alive and well, and is a huge deal. I have to show my ID for a lot of things in life, and its not very hard to make it so that voters have to show them for that also. Funny how the democrats have made voter id's a racist idea, yet they were just exposed doing exactly the thing that makes it very important to have voter ID laws. The people they bus around to vote in different places, and all the dead people coming to life just to vote mostly or all democrat is absurd and criminal. Its not racist to ask for ID. Its time to do away with the emotionalization of everything and start using common sense and logic. Emotionalization is just a tactic and sadly it works on too many people.

Where has voter fraud been "totally exposed"?  

Outside of right wing media news and blogs, where is the evidence of people bussed to different places and dead people coming to life?

Why wouldn't you be more concerned about election fraud, which actually could affect the outcome of elections, and against which voter IDs offer no protection? Why would you spend millions of dollars and expand government more to advantage one party?

http://www.theseahawk.org/news/studies-show-voter-fraud-at-less-than-percent-voter-id/article_da68ccd2-959a-11e6-85ec-934e251bfeea.html

The United States had 2,068 cases of alleged voter fraud from 2000 to 2012, according to a study conducted by News 21. In that same time, 741,835,519 people voted in federal elections, according to the Federal Election Commission.

Based on this data, the national proportion of voter fraud compared to overall voter turnout is 0.00028 percent.

22 out of the 2,068 cases happened in North Carolina, according to the study. None of these 22 cases were of voter impersonation, the only case in which photo ID would have prevented the fraud, and none of the cases involved registration fraud, which is the crime targeted by the law's termination of same-day registration.

[djam]

(10-23-2016, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Where has voter fraud been "totally exposed"?  

Outside of right wing media news and blogs, where is the evidence of people bussed to different places and dead people coming to life?

Why wouldn't you be more concerned about election fraud, which actually could affect the outcome of elections, and agaisnt which voter IDs offer no protection?

The only advantage that voter ids offer is to one party, the one that gets the fewest poor votes.

Voter ID's make no protection? So how about the thousands of people bussed around voting multiple times, riding around in Democrat  owned busses? Voter fraud IS election fraud LMAO......sheesh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/05/25/cbs-uncovers-voter-fraud-in-la-n2168330

[Dill]

(10-23-2016, 01:27 PM)djam Wrote: Voter ID's make no protection? So how about the thousands of people bussed around voting multiple times, riding around in Democrat  owned busses? Voter fraud IS election fraud LMAO......sheesh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/05/25/cbs-uncovers-voter-fraud-in-la-n2168330

Whoa djam, I am not disputing that thousands upon thousands of cases of voter fraud are "revealed" by right wing organizations during every election. Breitbart.com has a "dead voters" article for about every state in the Union, and the Veritas videos produce speculation about voter fraud, not evidence a prosecutor could act on.  That's the sort of thing you put out to whip up fears your candidate promises to manage.

I was speaking of "actual" cases, the record of complaints and prosecutions.  Election fraud is much more serious than voter fraud.

And voter suppression laws--id requirements, shorter polling hours, reduction of polling places, etc.--will do much more to affect the vote than a 3 cases of id fraud every four years.

After responding to pressure to address rampant voter fraud in Missouri with strict voter id laws, the state undertook a study which found no actual cases of voter fraud, but did see evidence the id law would disenfranchise 220,000 voters.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/default.aspx?PageId=5427

>>a bill that would establish the most onerous photo ID requirements in the country and possibly disenfranchise approximately 220,000 registered voters," Kander said. "HB1073 would make it more difficult for eligible Missouri voters who have legally voted for years to cast a ballot. . . . The report also notes that the Secretary of State’s office has not received any reports of voter impersonation fraud.<<

So the worry about voter fraud turns out to be very selective. Hundreds of thousands may be disenfranchised, and election fraud could affect hundreds of thousands of votes as well, but right wing voters focus on those one or two guys in the entire country who might vote for a dead person or steal someone's id.

[Dill]

(10-23-2016, 12:46 PM)djam Wrote: There are many laws in which we would all agree on --dems, reps, libs, greens, etc...all the parties. Basically protecting life from murder, rape, theft, etc, etc. Those are all easy and we would all agree on them. Beyond that though, what does more laws do? They favor one group and not the other. Beyond the basic laws --the natural laws, its just a bidding war. It'a the 51% forcing their will on the 49%. No matter how you approach it, someone is getting screwed over. At one time there was a phrase written on the dollar. It said "Live And Let Live". I suggest people began to practice that in their own lives, and forget trying to use government to twist the world into your vision. Th government as it is today, does more harm than good. It gets in peoples way and holds them back. No favors for ANYONE no matter your race religion or gender is the only way to be fair to everyone, period. This would mean an end to lobbiest too, which would heal a lot.

Would mandatory education or food/product safety laws fall under your "natural laws"?  Or do those represent the 51% forcing their will on the other 49%?  

[Dill]

(10-22-2016, 02:25 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I agree completely, but Democrats would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Republicans  while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing. And Republicans would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Democrats while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing.

My contention being if people don't have the initiative to learn, or at least pay attention, to become more informed, forcing them to learn it isn't going to make receptive to actually use their force fed knowledge in a useful or constructive way.

We already "force" people to learn some civic knowledge. E.g., most HS students in the US have to take a course on government, which gives them a rudimentary understanding of how the government works.  Without that, things would be much worse than they are. People who learn to recognize logical consistency and the degree to which arguments are or are not grounded in evidence do not necessarily become better haters.

So I don't agree that creating a better informed electorate would only make them better haters. Disinformation plays a large role in what you are calling "hate," and anything which gives voters the tools to recognize disinformation would be a positive, increasing the likelihood we elect good, competent candidates who will work for the country.

To this I will add that both parties are not equally "doing the exact same thing" they accuse the other of doing. In one party, inverting charges is a standard response to campaign issues, structural to their PR program. And not surprisingly, their disinformation is more programmatic, playing a central role in gaining and maintaining voters. False equivalences are the order of the day when their apologists come forward to explain what their presidential candidate "really" meant, as they must now do daily.

[BmorePat87]

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Congressional-Term-Limits

You guys talking about term limits now? Tried to discuss this a few days ago but no one wants to post anything here unless it involves them being able to take party line stance on an issue.

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2016, 11:27 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Congressional-Term-Limits

You guys talking about term limits now? Tried to discuss this a few days ago but no one wants to post anything here unless it involves them being able to take party line stance on an issue.

I stay out of those arguments usually. My opinions on it aren't really fully formed. I used ot be in favor of it, but more and more I find myself moving away from that.

[xxlt]

(10-23-2016, 03:26 PM)Dill Wrote: We already "force" people to learn some civic knowledge. E.g., most HS students in the US have to take a course on government, which gives them a rudimentary understanding of how the government works.  Without that, things would be much worse than they are. People who learn to recognize logical consistency and the degree to which arguments are or are not grounded in evidence do not necessarily become better haters.

So I don't agree that creating a better informed electorate would only make them better haters. Disinformation plays a large role in what you are calling "hate," and anything which gives voters the tools to recognize disinformation would be a positive, increasing the likelihood we elect good, competent candidates who will work for the country.

To this I will add that both parties are not equally "doing the exact same thing" they accuse the other of doing. In one party, inverting charges is a standard response to campaign issues, structural to their PR program. And not surprisingly, their disinformation is more programmatic, playing a central role in gaining and maintaining voters. False equivalences are the order of the day when their apologists come forward to explain what their presidential candidate "really" meant, as they must now do daily.

A couple of guys who had researched this told me something very interesting a few years ago. They looked at data on what parents wanted schools to teach children from the earliest days of formal education in America up until the most recent surveys available (this was circa 2011). Parents throughout this entire period have consistently wanted schools to teach their kids two things: 1. how to be a good person - get along with peers, have a good work ethic, share, etc., and 2. how to be a good citizen - understand how government works, what the responsibilities of citizen and elected official are, etc. And throughout the history of formal education guess what two things have been emphasized less and less every year? You got it, those two things. In fact many HS graduates today have never taken a single Civics class and some only had the option of taking - at most - one elective class in Civics for one semester. So, one of the two things parents most want their children to learn has been virtually eliminated from the curriculum. And people wonder why we have elections like this one, why voters are disenfranchised, and why people have no understanding of the political process. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 10:12 AM)xxlt Wrote: A couple of guys who had researched this told me something very interesting a few years ago. They looked at data on what parents wanted schools to teach children from the earliest days of formal education in America up until the most recent surveys available (this was circa 2011). Parents throughout this entire period have consistently wanted schools to teach their kids two things: 1. how to be a good person - get along with peers, have a good work ethic, share, etc., and 2. how to be a good citizen - understand how government works, what the responsibilities of citizen and elected official are, etc. And throughout the history of formal education guess what two things have been emphasized less and less every year? You got it, those two things. In fact many HS graduates today have never taken a single Civics class and some only had the option of taking - at most - one elective class in Civics for one semester. So, one of the two things parents most want their children to learn has been virtually eliminated from the curriculum. And people wonder why we have elections like this one, why voters are disenfranchised, and why people have no understanding of the political process. 

And, let's be frank, a lot of time what is covered in that one civics class is not often enough information to really make an informed voter. I mean, maybe my standards are a bit higher but how many people coming out of HS that have taken civics understand the evolution of federalism, the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, the selective incorporation of our liberties under the 14th, or the role of public opinion in the political landscape? To me, these are just a few important concepts, yet I know they weren't a part of my civics education in HS, and I doubt they are today for most people.

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 10:12 AM)xxlt Wrote: A couple of guys who had researched this told me something very interesting a few years ago. They looked at data on what parents wanted schools to teach children from the earliest days of formal education in America up until the most recent surveys available (this was circa 2011). Parents throughout this entire period have consistently wanted schools to teach their kids two things: 1. how to be a good person - get along with peers, have a good work ethic, share, etc., and 2. how to be a good citizen - understand how government works, what the responsibilities of citizen and elected official are, etc. And throughout the history of formal education guess what two things have been emphasized less and less every year? You got it, those two things. In fact many HS graduates today have never taken a single Civics class and some only had the option of taking - at most - one elective class in Civics for one semester. So, one of the two things parents most want their children to learn has been virtually eliminated from the curriculum. And people wonder why we have elections like this one, why voters are disenfranchised, and why people have no understanding of the political process. 

An excellent point, though clearly some parents don't want those two things.  One counter trend involves those who think the schools should "stay out of politics" and just teach the three "Rs".  These are parents who know full well their own beliefs won't stand for much scrutiny when schools expose students to science and history. 

There is a similar argument at the tertiary level, with right wing parents all up in arms about "indoctrination."  They would pull down standards just to insure their children aren't exposed to different views.

[xxlt]

(10-24-2016, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, let's be frank, a lot of time what is covered in that one civics class is not often enough information to really make an informed voter. I mean, maybe my standards are a bit higher but how many people coming out of HS that have taken civics understand the evolution of federalism, the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, the selective incorporation of our liberties under the 14th, or the role of public opinion in the political landscape? To me, these are just a few important concepts, yet I know they weren't a part of my civics education in HS, and I doubt they are today for most people.

Exactamundo. The guys I talked to said civics should be part of the curriculum from K-12 for two reasons: one because parents want that, and two because it will yield informed voters and a higher functioning democracy. I could not agree more.

[xxlt]

(10-24-2016, 10:25 AM)Dill Wrote: An excellent point, though clearly some parents don't want those two things.  One counter trend involves those who think the schools should "stay out of politics" and just teach the three "Rs".  These are parents who know full well their own beliefs won't stand for much scrutiny when schools expose students to science and history. 

There is a similar argument at the tertiary level, with right wing parents all up in arms about "indoctrination."  They would pull down standards just to insure their children aren't exposed to different views.

And those are the imbeciles we let drive the curriculum agenda far too often.

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, let's be frank, a lot of time what is covered in that one civics class is not often enough information to really make an informed voter. I mean, maybe my standards are a bit higher but how many people coming out of HS that have taken civics understand the evolution of federalism, the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, the selective incorporation of our liberties under the 14th, or the role of public opinion in the political landscape? To me, these are just a few important concepts, yet I know they weren't a part of my civics education in HS, and I doubt they are today for most people.

If that is true, Bels, then that is a failure that needs to be addressed.  Some of those issues might be difficult for HS students, but certainly could be taught in the general curriculum of any college.

In some states, like Texas, teaching government in HS is very difficult because right wing groups are constantly attacking teachers and courses, so public school administrators water down courses to the least controversial minimum.  There is a similar problem with science. When my son began middle school in Virginia, his biology teacher had to read a statement at the beginning of the class saying that evolution, like Genesis, was just a "theory"--"just" meaning the colloquial sense of opinion, not the scientific one of currently established knowledge.

No surprise that when Trump rants on about executive orders, so few of his followers realize he does not know what an executive order is.

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2016, 10:22 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: And, let's be frank, a lot of time what is covered in that one civics class is not often enough information to really make an informed voter. I mean, maybe my standards are a bit higher but how many people coming out of HS that have taken civics understand the evolution of federalism, the difference between civil liberties and civil rights, the selective incorporation of our liberties under the 14th, or the role of public opinion in the political landscape? To me, these are just a few important concepts, yet I know they weren't a part of my civics education in HS, and I doubt they are today for most people.

Doesn't help that we're the assessed social studies course for high school in Maryland, so there's a lot of "teaching to the test" in American Government. We cover federalism (influences of the Articles with it), don't have time to get nuanced with the difference between rights and liberties, just focus on what rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, I try to touch on the 14th Amendment as much as possible, but it isn't assessed, but we do focus on public opinion. Citizen involvement is a whole unit. 

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 02:46 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Doesn't help that we're the assessed social studies course for high school in Maryland, so there's a lot of "teaching to the test" in American Government. We cover federalism (influences of the Articles with it), don't have time to get nuanced with the difference between rights and liberties, just focus on what rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, I try to touch on the 14th Amendment as much as possible, but it isn't assessed, but we do focus on public opinion. Citizen involvement is a whole unit. 

Do you get into the different types of federalism and the evolution of the way our government approached federalism following Reconstruction? Just curious as to the depth there. I can understand the issue about teaching to the test, though, that was the same here when I was in HS. I also definitely get trying to hit on the 14th as much as you can because, let's face it, it is the most important amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights and completely changed our government.

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2016, 03:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Do you get into the different types of federalism and the evolution of the way our government approached federalism following Reconstruction? Just curious as to the depth there. I can understand the issue about teaching to the test, though, that was the same here when I was in HS. I also definitely get trying to hit on the 14th as much as you can because, let's face it, it is the most important amendment to the Constitution after the Bill of Rights and completely changed our government.

No, that's something left for AP US History. Our history segment ends midway through 1st quarter once we begin covering the Constitution.