myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Brexit
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brexit is a fact! What you wish to believe is irrelevant.

I won't bore you with my opinion of Irish neutrality during the war against nazism, when our nation was being blasted to bits and many of my parents generation gave their lives for our freedom.

I am a product of my upbringing during those times. I make no apology for my patriotism, and acceptance of the reality of much that lies behind the behaviour of base human nature.

No further comment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 13867
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

real-human wrote:
MalibuGuru wrote:
real-human wrote:
MalibuGuru wrote:
boggsman1 wrote:
GT...with all due respect, the entire world loves to take pot shots at our imperfect Democracy on a minute-minute basis. So, its entirely fair game for us to watch this clown on a world stage , stumble and bumble.. When you lose Winston Churchill's grandson, you know you're hosed...

https://nypost.com/2019/09/05/boris-johnsons-brother-resigns-from-parliament-in-latest-defeat/


The people VOTED! What part of that don't you understand?

It is rare to find a world leader (politician) who is heroic. Trump and Johnson arrived at the right time. Nigel Farage may have to finish the job.


russian involvement may have been able to slant to that side. Note russia is not afraid to go right into the UK and try to kill people. Rember Russians were able to make groups of right wingers to go to gtherings and protests and not one russian was there in the USA. Though again trump has welcomed those attacks and asked for Russia to attack americans.


I think Putin resides within your peanut sized brain.


You have never shown that you can think in any single post. Moscow Malibu barfie putin biottch with trump. Putin is the single largest threat to democracy in th entire world and even attacted our election to the benifit of you and your party. Kills reporters and anyone who runs against him. Has people executed all over the world that even tell the truth about him. Yep another hero of yours.
So .


wow my post was 2019..... wow oh wow was I spot on....

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Completely agree that Putin is the CURRENT single largest threat to democracy in the entire world, but there is no shortage of others to take over, should he fall.

Assuming the world does survive the latest nuclear threat, it is clear to many of us that democracy is NOT the natural human nature state. It is a thin veneer when faced with naked aggression. It is not a certainty that it can survive into an increasingly technological future because of its fundamental weakness.

As one of my reflective laid back tutors used to say, what the world needs is a benevolent dictatorship, Then after a short pause would add, but power corrupts doesn't it, and absolute power ---

What I can't see a solution to is how democracy will cope with the future displacement of millions of people from the uninhabitable areas of the world should global warming be inevitable? How is that going to work?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17320
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sat Apr 30, 2022 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Completely agree that Putin is the CURRENT single largest threat to democracy in the entire world, but there is no shortage of others to take over, should he fall.

Assuming the world does survive the latest nuclear threat, it is clear to many of us that democracy is NOT the natural human nature state. It is a thin veneer when faced with naked aggression. It is not a certainty that it can survive into an increasingly technological future because of its fundamental weakness.

As one of my reflective laid back tutors used to say, what the world needs is a benevolent dictatorship, Then after a short pause would add, but power corrupts doesn't it, and absolute power ---

What I can't see a solution to is how democracy will cope with the future displacement of millions of people from the uninhabitable areas of the world should global warming be inevitable? How is that going to work?


Spot on in several respects. The displacement of millions due to global warming has already begun, and is the greatest threat to global stability after Putin. While efforts to improve the technology and affordability of sustainable energy have shown great success, and the cost of fossil energy has helped turn the curve down, a huge amount of heat is already stored in the ocean, and probably ten feet of sea level rise is pretty much inevitable over the next century. That and heat will move people and arable areas around the globe at a rate not seen since the last ice age--when the population was tiny.

I continue to think that the American experiment, with a balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government was a brilliant design to cope with human nature and lust for power. But the increased concentration of power in the executive branch, supported by both parties over the last 4 decades, and the unbridled power of corporations and the ultra rich threaten to topple that structure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAS



Joined: 18 Feb 1997
Posts: 155
Location: planet earth

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 6:29 pm    Post subject: Harness Reply with quote

mac wrote:

I continue to think that the American experiment, with a balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government was a brilliant design to cope with human nature and lust for power. But the increased concentration of power in the executive branch, supported by both parties over the last 4 decades, and the unbridled power of corporations and the ultra rich threaten to topple that structure.


I think that the three branch system is flawed because it gives excessive power to smaller states in all 3 branches. First, the senate has 2 seats to each state, regardless of the size of the state. This biases the legislative branch in favor of the smaller states.

Second, the Presidency is decided by the Electoral College. Each state gets Electoral College members equal to the number of Congressional seats it holds. The number of Congressional seats a state has in the House of Representatives is population based, but the Senate, as noted above is biased toward the smaller states. This makes the entire Electoral College biased, and explains why George W. Bush lost the popular vote but became President. Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by a huge margin of about 2.9 million votes, but still became President.

Last, the judicial branch gets bias in 2 ways. First, the President nominates federal judges, and as noted above, the selection of President is biased toward the smaller states. Second, the Senate votes on confirmation of the President’s nominees. The Republican dominated Senate refused to hold hearings when Obama nominated Garland under the false pretext that it was as election year, but then when RBG died the appointment of Coney Barrett was rushed through right before the election. Delaying votes on potential judges in the Senate occurs for multiple nominees, not just the ones to the Supreme Court.

I understand the reason was to prevent he larger states from domination, but what we are seeing now is the opposite. The smaller states dominate the larger ones and we have tyranny of the minority.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17320
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Sun May 01, 2022 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Outstanding. A thoughtful comment by SAS.

The system was designed and intended to make legislation difficult—and it does. It was also designed in an era when only white men could vote, black folks were only counted as a fraction, and so forth. I wouldn’t argue that it is not flawed. But considering the times, it was pretty amazing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4101

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SAS,

Your argument doesn't consider the variables or the intent of the founders. For example, the population of the states have always been changing, in comparison to other states. Take a look at the attached chart and it only goes back 100 years+. Look down a little further and see how the population numbers have changed. The founders were smarter than you think.

What you seem to suggest is that we do away with the Senate or elect Senators based upon population, the same as the House. In which case small states (population wise) would have essentially no say in the governance of our country. States have rights and it's not just the population that is the determining factor. The founders got it right.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/population-rank-u-s-state-100-years/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SAS



Joined: 18 Feb 1997
Posts: 155
Location: planet earth

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
SAS,

Your argument doesn't consider the variables or the intent of the founders. For example, the population of the states have always been changing, in comparison to other states. Take a look at the attached chart and it only goes back 100 years+. Look down a little further and see how the population numbers have changed. The founders were smarter than you think.

What you seem to suggest is that we do away with the Senate or elect Senators based upon population, the same as the House. In which case small states (population wise) would have essentially no say in the governance of our country. States have rights and it's not just the population that is the determining factor. The founders got it right.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/population-rank-u-s-state-100-years/


My points have zero to do with the intent of the founders or changes in states’ populations over time. I am simply pointing out how the small states exert excess power in all 3 branches of the federal government. Just because states may change population over time does not change the end result, which is more power for the smaller states.

I also wrote nothing to "suggest" doing away with the Senate or changing how the Senators are elected. You are inserting your own biases. I do believe that there are ways to ensure small states don’t get overpowered by the large states without giving the small states excess power over all 3 branches of the federal government. Frankly, I have not thought about what is the best way to do this, simply because any changes would require amending the Constitution.

The process to amend the Constitution also gives excess power to the small states. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a 2/3 majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by 2/3 of the State legislatures. Since the Senate has bias toward smaller states, a vote in Congress is biased. And there are far more small states than large ones, so getting 2/3 of the State legislatures to vote in a way that would reduce power for many of them will never happen.

You are entitled to your opinion that the current system is "right,” but I think you might think differently if the situation was reversed and the Democratic party had excess power that it did not deserve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17320
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
SAS,

Your argument doesn't consider the variables or the intent of the founders. For example, the population of the states have always been changing, in comparison to other states. Take a look at the attached chart and it only goes back 100 years+. Look down a little further and see how the population numbers have changed. The founders were smarter than you think.

What you seem to suggest is that we do away with the Senate or elect Senators based upon population, the same as the House. In which case small states (population wise) would have essentially no say in the governance of our country. States have rights and it's not just the population that is the determining factor. The founders got it right.



https://www.visualcapitalist.com/population-rank-u-s-state-100-years/


Gee, the cranky guy rolls out the hoary "the founders intent" trope. There is nothing sacred about the founders intent--they were making compromises that were necessary to have a Federal government capable of defending the country and issuing money. To account for the fact that times change, they provided a mechanism for amending the Constitution. Which conservatives have blocked since Congress had the audacity to try establish an equal rights amendment to protect women.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4101

PostPosted: Mon May 02, 2022 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SAS said:

Quote:
I am simply pointing out how the small states exert excess power in all 3 branches of the federal government.


Small states exert excess power? Your issue seems to be with the Senate where small states have equal power, but little power in the House, which together is one branch of government. The Executive branch (or voting for) gives no advantage to small states. Judicial is by appointment and I don't see how small states have excess, or even equal power compared to large states.

You also said:
Quote:
And there are far more small states than large ones


Please distinguish the difference between small and large and what difference it makes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group