Politics The Joe Biden Thread (4 Viewers)

[andalusian]

When did I advocate for that?

Post 664:

Just one way the primaries are undemocratic and rigged to consolidate power between two major parties.

Which is less competition than pretty much any industry or business in the world. Shocking that a candidate who actually wants to move power from both parties to the people instead would have trouble winning a primary for either party...

The only way you do not consolidate power between a limited number of parties is to open them all. Because having 3, 4 or 5 instead of 2 is the same problem with a different constant. So, the only logical conclusion for this is to have an open system where everyone can run in one elections.

I think the biggest problem is that we need to publicly fund elections and remove most of the corporate money from politics.

I have no problem with that - but it is not related to the 2 party system (and if we again look at other places where they have unlimited parties - does not seem to be any different there.

Opening the primaries and having a runoff between the top two vote getters (if 50% of the vote isn't attained) isn't asking too much either.

Opening the primaries is a mistake - because it opens the door to unfriendly agents. There is nothing stopping Republicans for example, to vote for their preferred candidate in the republican primary but vote for a weak candidate in the democratic primaries. The registration process tries to solve this issue by basically limiting you to vote in 1 primary per election.

The runoff between the 2 vote getters is basically the primary system in reverse where instead of having 2 sets of primaries that are followed by a general election between the winner of these - you are having one giant primary for everyone that might be followed by a tie-break. As mentioned above - from a process design work - it complicates it for the general population - and I will once again show you that the Israeli system this month will have the 4th election since Apr 2019 - which makes it a more involved process for everyone.

I am going to say it again - the 2 party system is not the problem. The problem is really the lack of term limits and the limited accountability for campaign finance - which lead to power consolidation.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Post 664:



The only way you do not consolidate power between a limited number of parties is to open them all. Because having 3, 4 or 5 instead of 2 is the same problem with a different constant. So, the only logical conclusion for this is to have an open system where everyone can run in one elections.



I have no problem with that - but it is not related to the 2 party system (and if we again look at other places where they have unlimited parties - does not seem to be any different there.



Opening the primaries is a mistake - because it opens the door to unfriendly agents. There is nothing stopping Republicans for example, to vote for their preferred candidate in the republican primary but vote for a weak candidate in the democratic primaries. The registration process tries to solve this issue by basically limiting you to vote in 1 primary per election.

The runoff between the 2 vote getters is basically the primary system in reverse where instead of having 2 sets of primaries that are followed by a general election between the winner of these - you are having one giant primary for everyone that might be followed by a tie-break. As mentioned above - from a process design work - it complicates it for the general population - and I will once again show you that the Israeli system this month will have the 4th election since Apr 2019 - which makes it a more involved process for everyone.

I am going to say it again - the 2 party system is not the problem. The problem is really the lack of term limits and the limited accountability for campaign finance - which lead to power consolidation.

You just make it illegal to vote more than once in a primary. This doesn't seem like that big of a problem...

The two party system is absolutely part of the problem. The DNC and RNC have far too much leverage. But that would be drastically reduced by campaign finance changes.

Which is why we will probably not see effective campaign finance changes. Thanks to the two party system supporting the current system as it stands from both sides...

 

[andalusian]

You just make it illegal to vote more than once in a primary. This doesn't seem like that big of a problem...

So, instead of ensuring that the someone is allowed to vote by registering - you want to ensure that someone is allowed to vote by ensuring someone did not vote somewhere else? What next? Anyone can come in and we will later check if you have a valid passport? Yes, sir, you can go take them nukes and we will check later if you are allowed to do so?

This is just not a very reasonable suggestion.

The two party system is absolutely part of the problem. The DNC and RNC have far too much leverage. But that would be drastically reduced by campaign finance changes.

So, if it was the RNC, DNC, GNC and TNC (I added the Green and Tea parties) it would not be? The issue is not that there is a C (where C is a constant) number of parties - the procedure is not relevant to the issue. The issue is that there is a concentration of power - and the way to resolve it is with term limits(*) all around and better auditing of campaign finance. The number of parties is not the issue at all.

Which is why we will probably not see effective campaign finance changes. Thanks to the two party system supporting the current system as it stands from both sides...

So, your assertion is that if there are 2 parties - but people can not serve there for long time (either in the party management itself or in senate, congress etc...) and money is equal or close to it for all candidates the same problem still exists? I do not believe it at all. The problem is concentration of power, simple as that. The procedural way you create a voting process is not important.

(*) Of course, the issue here is that there needs to be a balance between "time to learn the job" and "concentration of power". So, 1 term for congressmen or senators makes little sense - but "lifetime" service is.

 

[Phatguysrule]

So, instead of ensuring that the someone is allowed to vote by registering - you want to ensure that someone is allowed to vote by ensuring someone did not vote somewhere else? What next? Anyone can come in and we will later check if you have a valid passport? Yes, sir, you can go take them nukes and we will check later if you are allowed to do so?

This is just not a very reasonable suggestion.



So, if it was the RNC, DNC, GNC and TNC (I added the Green and Tea parties) it would not be? The issue is not that there is a C (where C is a constant) number of parties - the procedure is not relevant to the issue. The issue is that there is a concentration of power - and the way to resolve it is with term limits(*) all around and better auditing of campaign finance. The number of parties is not the issue at all.



So, your assertion is that if there are 2 parties - but people can not serve there for long time (either in the party management itself or in senate, congress etc...) and money is equal or close to it for all candidates the same problem still exists? I do not believe it at all. The problem is concentration of power, simple as that. The procedural way you create a voting process is not important.

(*) Of course, the issue here is that there needs to be a balance between "time to learn the job" and "concentration of power". So, 1 term for congressmen or senators makes little sense - but "lifetime" service is.

It's a felony if you commit voter fraud. That's why it's not a big problem. You only get 1 ballot counted and if you try to vote multiple times you get a felony.

This is already handled quite easily. This may surprise you, but you couldn't vote for both Trump and Biden in the general election.

 

[andalusian]

This is already handled quite easily. This may surprise you, but you couldn't vote for both Trump and Biden in the general election.

Correct, because you need to be a registered voter to vote - but you want to remove the party registration from the voting... You are contradicting yourself here...

 

[Phatguysrule]

Correct, because you need to be a registered voter to vote - but you want to remove the party registration from the voting... You are contradicting yourself here...

No, I didn't say anything about removing any party from anything. I said to allow anybody to vote for anybody they want in any primary.

If you try to vote twice they'll know. This is not a problem.

 

[barfo]

No, I didn't say anything about removing any party from anything. I said to allow anybody to vote for anybody they want in any primary.

If you try to vote twice they'll know. This is not a problem.

There are many states that allow voting in whichever primary a voter chooses (without change of registration).

Google says:
Alabama
Michigan
Montana
Vermont
Arkansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Virginia
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Missouri
Texas

are of that type. Not sure how old that list is so it may not be 100% accurate.

I wouldn't say any of those states have achieved electoral nirvana through that rule.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

There are many states that allow voting in whichever primary a voter chooses (without change of registration).

Google says:
Alabama
Michigan
Montana
Vermont
Arkansas
Minnesota
North Dakota
Virginia
Georgia
Mississippi
South Carolina
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Missouri
Texas

are of that type. Not sure how old that list is so it may not be 100% accurate.

I wouldn't say any of those states have achieved electoral nirvana through that rule.

barfo

Right, thank you. And no rampant voter fraud in those states. My point was that there are many states which do not allow that. Which is an obstacle I believe should not exist.

Very simple.

 

[andalusian]

No, I didn't say anything about removing any party from anything. I said to allow anybody to vote for anybody they want in any primary.

If you try to vote twice they'll know. This is not a problem.

But you already allow everyone to vote in any primary by registering - which automatically solves the 2nd problem of voting twice. So - this is a non-issue.

The registration process which is not closed to anyone (thus any valid voter can do it) - automatically eliminates the duplicate vote. In other words - it does exactly what you want for a very small price - and probably the most efficient way of doing it (because it makes the verification of only a single vote very easy - where you would have to synchronize 2 huge database otherwise).

 

[Phatguysrule]

But you already allow everyone to vote in any primary by registering - which automatically solves the 2nd problem of voting twice. So - this is a non-issue.

The registration process which is not closed to anyone (thus any valid voter can do it) - automatically eliminates the duplicate vote. In other words - it does exactly what you want for a very small price - and probably the most efficient way of doing it (because it makes the verification of only a single vote very easy - where you would have to synchronize 2 huge database otherwise).

No. It's pointless, except to disenfranchise voters and consolidate power. It doesn't make verification any easier at all.

 

[stampedehero]

Biden starts victory lap on COVID-19 relief bill while preparing for next big legislative push (msn.com)<<<<

 

[RR7]

No, I didn't say anything about removing any party from anything. I said to allow anybody to vote for anybody they want in any primary.

If you try to vote twice they'll know. This is not a problem.

I feel like with that we'd end up with a lot of advocating from both sides for choosing the other sides perceived worst option, and have an even bigger divide.
Of course, I also think that means the dems still would have ended up with Biden!

 

[Phatguysrule]

I feel like with that we'd end up with a lot of advocating from both sides for choosing the other sides perceived worst option, and have an even bigger divide.
Of course, I also think that means the dems still would have ended up with Biden!

It doesn't matter who wins as long as the will of the people is most accurately represented.

Our system should strive for the most well educated, most capable population which has as few obstacles to participation as possible.

 

[RR7]

It doesn't matter who wins as long as the will of the people is most accurately represented.

Our system should strive for the most well educated, most capable population which has as few obstacles to participation as possible.

But if there's no chance I would vote for either, say, Hawley or DeSantis for president, why would I choose which one wins a Republican primary? Me voting in a republican primary, while being undeclared, IMO, doesn't accurately represent the will of the people. Unless ultimately, it's the will of the people for Biden to win a 2nd term, and by me voting for who I think is the weakest republican candidate, that makes that happen?

 

[Phatguysrule]

But if there's no chance I would vote for either, say, Hawley or DeSantis for president, why would I choose which one wins a Republican primary? Me voting in a republican primary, while being undeclared, IMO, doesn't accurately represent the will of the people. Unless ultimately, it's the will of the people for Biden to win a 2nd term, and by me voting for who I think is the weakest republican candidate, that makes that happen?

Why wouldn't you just vote for the candidate you actually want? You only get 1 vote.

 

[RR7]

Why wouldn't you just vote for the candidate you actually want? You only get 1 vote.

Sorry, maybe I missed your position on it, then. DO you just want one giant primary, top 2 go on the presidential ballot?

 

[andalusian]

No. It's pointless, except to disenfranchise voters and consolidate power. It doesn't make verification any easier at all.

As a software architect that works with issues of authentication and authorization on a daily basis - allow me to ensure you that it is a lot cheaper and a lot easier to authenticate and authorize against a single database checking for the existence of a record.

The very idea that it makes no change stands against any reasonable analysis of computational complexity theory. The science is most certainly not on your side here.

But, I have discussed it as much as I am interested in - I think we both understand each other's position - so it is time to declare this discussion done.

 

[Strenuus]

Debunking Biden's BS That COVID Stimulus "Cuts Poverty in Half".

I think the notion that people would believe that one bill would cut it in half when there are more systemic problems that causes poverty is asinine in itself.

 

[stampedehero]

It doesn't matter who wins as long as the will of the people is most accurately represented.

Our system should strive for the most well educated, most capable population which has as few obstacles to participation as possible.

Our system should strive for the most well educated, most capable population which has as few obstacles to participation as possible. ~Absolute poetry, my friend.

 

[stampedehero]

Our system should strive for the most well educated, most capable population which has as few obstacles to participation as possible. ~Absolute poetry, my friend.

Unfortunately, Republican States Electoral systems are out to road block all that you say.......

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sorry, maybe I missed your position on it, then. DO you just want one giant primary, top 2 go on the presidential ballot?

I want the primaries to be inclusive. Illegal to be exclusive. So anybody can vote in any primary. But you only get 1 vote during the primaries.

Many states already do this. I'd like to see it nation wide.

 

[stampedehero]

Biden Tells Nation There Is Hope After a Devastating Year (msn.com)After watching him, I know he really cares about US! He reminds me of my dad, how level he was, his real persona and his care for his family. I am so happy Joe is in charge.

 

[Lanny]

As a software architect that works with issues of authentication and authorization on a daily basis - allow me to ensure you that it is a lot cheaper and a lot easier to authenticate and authorize against a single database checking for the existence of a record.

The very idea that it makes no change stands against any reasonable analysis of computational complexity theory. The science is most certainly not on your side here.

But, I have discussed it as much as I am interested in - I think we both understand each other's position - so it is time to declare this discussion done.

That's why they have programs that allow a developer to check out the latest version of software under development while locking out anyone else from messing with it at the same time. One developer or team at a time.

 

[jonnyboy]

Why is Biden taking credit for the vaccine?

 

[Lanny]

Why is Biden taking credit for the vaccine?

I haven't seen or heard where he has.

 

[jonnyboy]

I haven't seen or heard where he has.

Last night he repeatedly referenced “MY administration” in reference to the vaccine rollout.
The reality is he’s benefiting from the massive wave of vaccine production the last administration set in motion.
Biden and Harris even went as far as saying they didn’t trust the vaccines while Trump was still in office and beginning to roll them out. Interestingly enough they were providing the SAME reasons many people currently still skeptical are (hasty development, lack of testing, mass production, etc.) Seems now anyone who holds any of those skepticisms is an ANTI VAXXER!!!

Strange times.

 

[donkiez]

Last night he repeatedly referenced “MY administration” in reference to the vaccine rollout.
The reality is he’s benefiting from the massive wave of vaccine production the last administration set in motion.
Biden and Harris even went as far as saying they didn’t trust the vaccines while Trump was still in office and beginning to roll them out. Interestingly enough they were providing the SAME reasons many people currently still skeptical are (hasty development, lack of testing, mass production, etc.) Seems now anyone who holds any of those skepticisms is an ANTI VAXXER!!!

Strange times.

The Trump admin didn't roll anything out. The vaccines were approved and that was the extent of what they did. The system was left as a complete shit show by the previous admin. It's taken this long to just get some semblance of normalcy and order with the roll out.

 

[stampedehero]

Why is Biden taking credit for the vaccine?

I think he is taking responsibility to get the vaccine into American Arms. Joe is not like Trump; who sought stage lights and delivered a bullshit act every time he saw a camera.

 

[stampedehero]

The Trump admin didn't roll anything out. The vaccines were approved and that was the extent of what they did. The system was left as a complete shit show by the previous admin. It's taken this long to just get some semblance of normalcy and order with the roll out.

Absolutely! I hope his support base can decipher his prior Presidential actions and never forget people died on his words. From what I've seen, Trump flags are still mounted on fools' porches.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The Trump admin didn't roll anything out. The vaccines were approved and that was the extent of what they did. The system was left as a complete shit show by the previous admin. It's taken this long to just get some semblance of normalcy and order with the roll out.

This.

Let’s also not forget Trump blatantly lied about how much vaccine we actually had.

Are we also forgetting how Trump also downplayed the seriousness of COVID multiple times and in many ways? Or how his admin decreased funding to agencies that could have helped prevent or combat COVID?