Nov Election, Candidates Aside...

[mkemse]

Candidates aside, is there anyone else here who like me lives in the United States that at this point simply wants to the the Presidental Election over??
I am NOT asking anyone to choose sides here, so please DON'T do that here, there is another thread for that, just wondered if anyone else here like myself have said "Enough is Enough Already" Let's get this Election Over with and move on

thanks

[Ragoczy]

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!

With the Primaries starting in fucking January, I am so over it I'd gladly piss in the ballot box.

The only trouble is the campaigning and maneuvering for 2012 will start around two days after the election. Bastards.

[mkemse]

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY!

With the Primaries starting in fucking January, I am so over it I'd gladly piss in the ballot box.

The only trouble is the campaigning and maneuvering for 2012 will start around two days after the election. Bastards.

Love your direct reply and answer, I agree with you 100000%

I had an idea i sent to my State Senator, limit campaigning to 6 month before the election, you can't even annouce your intentions to run earlier then 1 year before the Nov elections, 1 Nation Wide Super Primary, all state have their Primaries on the same day

Pick the Candidate from the 1 day National Primary, Nominate him/her at the Conventions, Give each Parties Candidate the same amount of Money to spend, no more no less, no fund raising , donation, amnd limit TV AND Radio ads to say 5 per person per month, no more no less,ect 1 lump sum to use (or abuse) as he/herwantsvote for him or her in November AND GET IT OVER WITH PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ragoczy]

Love your direct reply and answer, I agree with you 100000%

I had an idea i sent to my State Senator, limit campaigning to 6 month before the election, you can't even annouce your intentions to run earlier then 1 year before the Nov elections, 1 Nation Wide Super Primary, all state have their Primaries on the same day

Pick the Candidate from the 1 day National Primary, Nominate him/her at the Conventions, Give each Parties Candidate the same amount of Money to spend, no more no less, no fund raising , donation, amnd limit TV AND Radio ads to say 5 per person per month, no more no less,ect 1 lump sum to use (or abuse) as he/herwantsvote for him or her in November AND GET IT OVER WITH PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First Amendment issues with some of that, unfortunately, but on the limited campaign season, I can get behind that.

[Stealth694]

I remember an old Shoe cartoon:

Has Shoe and the Professor sitting in front of congressbird Fishhawk ( Tip Oneal look alike) saying this:
" Now that the Election is over we in congress can concentrate on the Important issues"

RELECTION:

Talk about fiction imitating truth

[mkemse]

First Amendment issues with some of that, unfortunately, but on the limited campaign season, I can get behind that.

They can still have complete freedom of speach and say what you want aboutthe issues and each other, but limit the time they have to do it that's all, do not change anything justthe timeframes they can do in it, if you limit the moneyyhey have to advettise NOBODY has an advantage over the other and the can campaign for once on the issues and not worry about the money ect. each person still has the same amounto f money and time only it is limited

[Ragoczy]

They can still have complete freedom of speach and say what you want aboutthe issues and each other, but limit the time they have to do it that's all, do not change anything justthe timeframes they can do in it, if you limit the moneyyhey have to advettise NOBODY has an advantage over the other and the can campaign for once on the issues and not worry about the money ect. each person still has the same amounto f money and time only it is limited

By limiting their airtime you're limiting their speech. It's the same issue I have with McCain-Feingold -- it sounds good, but it violates people's rights. I'm not saying I like the system, just that setting limits is a slippery slope.

[Thorne]

By limiting their airtime you're limiting their speech. It's the same issue I have with McCain-Feingold -- it sounds good, but it violates people's rights. I'm not saying I like the system, just that setting limits is a slippery slope.

I think you could consider it more a limitation on how much they are permitted to spend on the media, such as commercials and the like. If all sides are treated equally I don't believe there would be any violation of first amendment rights. They can still say what they want on the stump, at meetings, at rallies, etc. They would still get news coverage, provided that coverage is equal and unbiased. Just limit their paid commercial time.

And I like the idea that all candidates are funded equally, from a public fund set up for that with voluntary donations. All donations made to a joint fund, not to a particular party. That might make it even more likely that the candidate with the best platform will be elected, not the one with the best funding.

Of course, this is all fantasy. About as likely to happen as the moon falling down. Oh, well. It's a nice dream, anyway.

[TheDeSade]

election? what election? I thought the national press already had it decided?

[Ragoczy]

election? what election? I thought the national press already had it decided?

The formalities have to be observed so the dumb masses (say it fast) think they made the decision.

[Ragoczy]

I think you could consider it more a limitation on how much they are permitted to spend on the media, such as commercials and the like. If all sides are treated equally I don't believe there would be any violation of first amendment rights. They can still say what they want on the stump, at meetings, at rallies, etc. They would still get news coverage, provided that coverage is equal and unbiased. Just limit their paid commercial time.

And I like the idea that all candidates are funded equally, from a public fund set up for that with voluntary donations. All donations made to a joint fund, not to a particular party. That might make it even more likely that the candidate with the best platform will be elected, not the one with the best funding.

Of course, this is all fantasy. About as likely to happen as the moon falling down. Oh, well. It's a nice dream, anyway.

The First Amendment doesn't say all limits must be equally applied, it says that there won't be any limits in the first place.

[mkemse]

election? what election? I thought the national press already had it decided?

They did but he Citizen's Damanded a recount off all 15 ballots cast, somehow ended up tied LOL (Only in America can you have a tie with 15 votes cast )

[Ragoczy]

They did but he Citizen's Damanded a recount off all 15 ballots cast, somehow ended up tied LOL (Only in America can you have a tie with 15 votes cast )

It's 'cause Chris Mathews voted twice ... the tingly feeling in his leg distracted him.

[mkemse]

It's 'cause Chris Mathews voted twice ... the tingly feeling in his leg distracted him.

No I heard from semi reliable sources that Matthews Voted 3 times it was Katty Kay (She is from the BBC on His Show) that voted 2x

The others on th show did not have their votes counted do to a hanging Chad issue, (whever a Hanging Chad is)

Never mind i found it:
Noun 1. Hanging Chad - a chad that is incompletely removed and hanging by one corner
chad - a small piece of paper that is supposed to be removed when a hole is punched in a card or paper tape

[TheDeSade]

wrong. . .

Hanging Chad. . . . Noun . . . the pet name of a man named chad who is obedient to one Mistress Hillary and can be found in bondage suspension most days in a room remodeled to represent the Presidential Oval Office in a private residence in New York.

[mkemse]

wrong. . .

Hanging Chad. . . . Noun . . . the pet name of a man named chad who is obedient to one Mistress Hillary and can be found in bondage suspension most days in a room remodeled to represent the Presidential Oval Office in a private residence in New York.

Thank you for the correction

I thought that office was renamed Monica's Place??

And only in America as far as I know, can we post this and NOT get arrested for
Anti Government remarks

[lucy]

Thank you for the correction

I thought that office was renamed Monica's Place??

And only in America as far as I know, can we post this and NOT get arrested for
Anti Government remarks

Sorry, but you're completely wrong here. There are other countries which have freedom of speech. It's not like if you cross the border you're entering the world of torture, dictatorships and suppressed masses deprived of every right. There are other civilised countries out there, you know.
If i'm not misinformed, America didn't even invent freedom of speech

(Now i could make a statement here to prove you wrong, but i'm not sure whether the governmental torture chambers provide internet access to the inmates. So posting here tomorrow to prove you wrong might get difficult. )

[mkemse]

Sorry, but you're completely wrong here. There are other countries which have freedom of speech. It's not like if you cross the border you're entering the world of torture, dictatorships and suppressed masses deprived of every right. There are other civilised countries out there, you know.
If i'm not misinformed, America didn't even invent freedom of speech

(Now i could make a statement here to prove you wrong, but i'm not sure whether the governmental torture chambers provide internet access to the inmates. So posting here tomorrow to prove you wrong might get difficult. )

Thanks the question was ask out of curiosity, nothing more, what other Countries allow this?? Canada, and who else

[Thorne]

The First Amendment doesn't say all limits must be equally applied, it says that there won't be any limits in the first place.

But I'm not limiting their free speech. I'm only limiting their access to a method of disseminating that speech. Any person in this country is, theoretically, allowed to say pretty much what he wants to say. He is not permitted to go around with a bull horn all day and night spouting off his beliefs. That impinges on other's rights to peace and quiet. The same principle applies her, I believe.

[lucy]

Thanks the question was ask out of curiosity, nothing more, what other Countries allow this?? Canada, and who else

Every single country in Europe does. From Portugal in the west to Ukraine in the east (with the exception of Belarus), from Iceland in the north to Greece in the south (not too sure about all the Ex-Yugoslavian countries, tho). Plus many more around the world (Australia and New Zealand for sure, possibly Japan too). Even in Latin America you don't go to jail automatically anymore if you say something against the government.

I think the flag burning issue can serve as a reference point: What does happen if you burn a star spangled banner publicly? Will that result in you being prosecuted? Even sentenced?

Unlike many other Europeans i think the U.S. are a really great country and Americans are definitely much smarter than some over here tend to think (ok, i'm biased since my Master is American)
But i also think that many Americans should open up their eyes and minds and realize that the outside world isn't just a bunch of commies, primitives or terrorists.

Most of us are in fact pretty much like you


Edit: Sorry, i didn't want to mess with your thread. I'll stay out of it now

[Ragoczy]

But I'm not limiting their free speech. I'm only limiting their access to a method of disseminating that speech. Any person in this country is, theoretically, allowed to say pretty much what he wants to say. He is not permitted to go around with a bull horn all day and night spouting off his beliefs. That impinges on other's rights to peace and quiet. The same principle applies her, I believe.

There's a significant difference between a bullhorn and television air time. You would be saying that I, as a candidate, could not spend my own money to by advertising time and deliver my message. Just as McCain-Feingold limits when I, as an individual, can spend my money to express my personal view on the election. Both are wrong and should not be allowed.

Once you start the limiting, it may sound simple, but it becomes very complex. Who's limited and when and how? Public funds -- if only public funds can be used, then who qualifies to get them? It's dangerous territory, because freedoms are lost in little steps.

[gagged_Louise]

Flag burning strikes me as an American issue. I've never heard of anyone going to jail or even being fined, in the last forty years, for burning an Irish, Swedish, German or Italian flag - provided it was their own flag! People around might get irritated or angry or say "that was immature", but nowadays it's not seen as a sacrilege against the nation per se, no matter what the point of it was, and a step past the limits of civilized free expression. Legally it's a non-issue.

It's a political act, not a means of voting yourself out into the wilderness and asking to be taken to jail. This ultra-dramatic view of flag burning is something you stick to in America, a reflection of the prairie frontier mentality maybe?

[hopperboo]

Tangent....

It's a political act, not a means of voting tyourself out into the wilderness and asking to be taken to jail. This ultra-dramatic view of flag burning is something you stick to in America, a reflection of the prairie frontier mentality maybe?

I don't believe in burning the American flag. (Or any countries flag for that matter).

I think it's a spit in the face to the rest of America, to our history, and to our men and women in arms.



Back on topic....
I can't wait for this election to be over. I am tired of seeing and hearing the ads everywhere.

Not to mention it's making me nervous - waiting.

[gagged_Louise]

Well I didn't say everyone would like it or even think it's acceptable, but to most people in Europe (and e.g. Canada or Australia, I suspect) it's not near as inflamed an issue as in the USA (the same goes for the pledge of allegiance in schools). Most people here would scoff at the idea of expelling students or lawyers because they have participated at a rally where flags were burnt, or raising a hue and cry over a professor or a politician because they have been more or less closely involved with a group that burnt flags thirty years ago or that printed leaflets demanding that the Army should be disbanded. Flag defamation is not seen as utterly different from other kinds of political symbolism.

[mkemse]

Flag burning strikes me as an American issue. I've never heard of anyone going to jail or even being fined, in the last forty years, for burning an Irish, Swedish, German or Italian flag - provided it was their own flag! People around might get irritated or angry or say "that was immature", but nowadays it's not seen as a sacrilege against the nation per se, no matter what the point of it was, and a step past the limits of civilized free expression. Legally it's a non-issue.

It's a political act, not a means of voting yourself out into the wilderness and asking to be taken to jail. This ultra-dramatic view of flag burning is something you stick to in America, a reflection of the prairie frontier mentality maybe?

I beleive the United State Supreme Court, be they right or not rules a few years back, the as tasteless ect as it is burning an American Flag anywhere including in the United States is protected by Freedom of Speach and Exprtession, so in the United States it is legal,
this does not represent oneway or another my personal feelings on the subject

[gagged_Louise]

Well, people do not run riot burning flags here in Europe. far from it. But the idea that it's so one of a kind, or almost like shooting a soldier point blank in his home, is much less widespread. I think there is more understanding here that you can feel "our flag is being used as a cloak for things I hate, and that everyone should abhor - war crimes, persecution, hypocrisy" - and then burning it can be a useful means to call attention to those things. The heavier the hypocrisy you're fighting, the sharper the means you may have to pick to get the message across.

Of course it matters that the USA has been more involved in war than most European countries in the past fifty years, but hey we do have armies too, so I don't think it's just that.

[Ragoczy]

Flag burning strikes me as an American issue. I've never heard of anyone going to jail or even being fined, in the last forty years, for burning an Irish, Swedish, German or Italian flag - provided it was their own flag! People around might get irritated or angry or say "that was immature", but nowadays it's not seen as a sacrilege against the nation per se, no matter what the point of it was, and a step past the limits of civilized free expression. Legally it's a non-issue.

It's a political act, not a means of voting yourself out into the wilderness and asking to be taken to jail. This ultra-dramatic view of flag burning is something you stick to in America, a reflection of the prairie frontier mentality maybe?

The real research shows this is a non-issue. There's a vocal minority that very much wants flag-burning to be illegal and a disinterested majority that the media takes advantage of to make it a bigger issue than it is.

What I mean by this is that there are relatively few people who take flag-burning that seriously, but they're extremely vocal about it and get a lot of press because they make good television. The press then has a poll to which lots of people answer about flag burning in much the same way as they would "sure, there should be a law that the drive-thru can't screw up your order". In every poll that has asked respondents to rank flag-burning on some sort of scale, it typically falls at the bottom of most people's concerns.

An anti-flag-burning amendment plays well for the Republicans because a) supporting it solidifies the base, and b) it's not going to actually come to a vote and wouldn't pass even if it did -- so it's a perennial issue to mobilize those interested in it.

But the media portrayal of this and other issues results in a perception that we have a "prairie, frontier mentality", I guess. Though I'm really not sure why that's a bad thing, since I'd take that mentality to mean self-reliance and perseverance -- something a lot of Americans (and the "civilized" world in general) are losing to their detriment.

My personal view on flag burning is that it's stupid the way it's typically done because it's done with rage and anger and that turns people off. Even the people who don't really care aren't going to take a raging flag-burner seriously, therefore he's not going to convince anyone to his point of view -- and if he's not trying to convince people, then he's simply engaged in political masturbation and is, frankly, a little sad.

The flag is a symbol of the country. For me, burning it in protest means that the country has changed -- that the symbol no longer means what it once did. That should be an act of sorrow, not rage.

If a flag-burning amendment ever does pass, I'll likely be arrested; because I'll be sitting on the Capital steps with a stack of flags and a brazier, mourning the passing of the Constitution I so dearly love.

Part of the distaste for it, though, probably comes from images of those in other countries burning the American flag. There's an association then between that and someone burning it here, so since those people hate us, then the American flag-burner must hate us as well -- and if so, why doesn't he just get the fuck out? If it's done with an "America-sucks" theme and not an "America's better than this" theme, then that's my opinion too -- because too often I've seen the American flag burnt at protests of something that is fundamentally American.

[Ragoczy]

I beleive the United State Supreme Court, be they right or not rules a few years back, the as tasteless ect as it is burning an American Flag anywhere including in the United States is protected by Freedom of Speach and Exprtession, so in the United States it is legal,
this does not represent oneway or another my personal feelings on the subject

Flag burning is protected speech. The only "arrests" have been because the idiots were setting fires in public places without a permit or any safety precautions. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can set a fire inside a public building -- some putz once tried to burn the flag that belonged to a library in the library (I think it was in Columbus).

[Ragoczy]

Well I didn't say everyone would like it or even think it's acceptable, but to most people in Europe (and e.g. Canada or Australia, I suspect) it's not near as inflamed an issue as in the USA (the same goes for the pledge of allegiance in schools). Most people here would scoff at the idea of expelling students or lawyers because they have participated at a rally where flags were burnt, or raising a hue and cry over a professor or a politician because they have been more or less closely involved with a group that burnt flags thirty years ago or that printed leaflets demanding that the Army should be disbanded. Flag defamation is not seen as utterly different from other kinds of political symbolism.

I think you're getting a lot of issues mixed up. If there were a hue and cry over every professor who'd participated in a radical rally during the sixties, we wouldn't have anyone teaching in our colleges.

There is an occasional hue and cry over professors that are blatantly anti-American. I, personally, have a bit of an issue about sending my kids to a college and them being required to take a course from someone who has a political agenda to indoctrinate them. That's my job.

In fact, we're seeing it at the grade school level. They just last year tried to teach my eight-year old that "nation" in the Pledge of Allegiance meant "government" -- i.e. that the Pledge is an oath of loyalty to the "government". A rather sick thing in a country founded on rebellion against a tyrannical government. I still haven't figured out if it that curriculum was a deliberate attempt to turn out good little workers or if the teacher was just stupid -- she was, after all, the same one who taught that thirty-two cents is written 0.32c/.

[Thorne]

There's a significant difference between a bullhorn and television air time. You would be saying that I, as a candidate, could not spend my own money to by advertising time and deliver my message. Just as McCain-Feingold limits when I, as an individual, can spend my money to express my personal view on the election. Both are wrong and should not be allowed.

Once you start the limiting, it may sound simple, but it becomes very complex. Who's limited and when and how? Public funds -- if only public funds can be used, then who qualifies to get them? It's dangerous territory, because freedoms are lost in little steps.

I understand your objections and can see some merit in them. But I can also see merit in restructuring the election process. As things stand now, the candidate who can raise the most money stands the best chance of buying the election. That requires him/her to kowtow to the people with the money; big business, the elite, etc. This makes it very difficult for a candidate who wants to impose limits on the effects of big business and the rich on politics to get funding, thereby making it more difficult for him to buy equal time on TV.

What I'm saying is, take the money out of the equation. ALL funds go into a trough, and every candidate gets an equal portion. Then limit the amount of money which can be spent on advertising. The candidate can choose to purchase a lot of TV time in non-prime time slots, or a little bit of time in the more expensive, but more lucrative slots.

As for who would qualify for this money, sure there are problems which would have to be ironed out. I don't claim to have all the answers. And I don't want to see anyone's freedoms taken away. I just want to see more equity in the election process, making it a little more possible for a non-Democrat or non-Republican to get into office. As for personal choices, you can still promote your candidate through innumerable free venues, such as writing letters to the papers, online sites, even public rallies.

Sure it's a rough proposal, and one I don't anticipate getting any serious attention from politicians. After all, passing a law along these lines would be tantamount to political suicide for many of them.