The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    After ending his primary challenge to President Trump, Joe Walsh says he will vote Democrat in 2020:

    “I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator."

    ... You're going to vote out a dictator? Do you hear yourself? Like, at all?
     

    Ingomike

    Top Hand
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    31,594
    113
    North Central
    After ending his primary challenge to President Trump, Joe Walsh says he will vote Democrat in 2020:

    “I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator."

    ... You're going to vote out a dictator? Do you hear yourself? Like, at all?

    Was he ever a republican? That is a crazy statement but the dumbmasses will never get it...
     

    Ingomike

    Top Hand
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    May 26, 2018
    31,594
    113
    North Central
    After ending his primary challenge to President Trump, Joe Walsh says he will vote Democrat in 2020:

    “I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator."

    ... You're going to vote out a dictator? Do you hear yourself? Like, at all?

    BREAKING: Crisis, Leftists Run Out Of Bad Words To Call Trump...
     

    ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    Was he ever a republican? That is a crazy statement but the dumbmasses will never get it...

    Well, if not, he did pretend to be:

    EQLu0xpU4AMbcFY
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    I don't believe something that doesn't work in the real world is a solution.
    This is true. The evidence of this is that public imposed term limits have never happened historically.

    If you have a flat tire, and an air compressor, you have the solution.
    Choosing not to do that doesn't change that.

    It's more like you have millions of flat tires, and air compressors, and some tires get filled but most don't, because going out in the world is scary and maybe it's better to just keep the car on jacks. Or, the half of those people who care about flat tires, and want to drive out in the world, most of those don't think their tire needs air--it's just the other people's tires that need air.

    Unfortunately NNBD's right. "If only we could just choose do the right thing" isn't a solution. If it were, it would have happened on its own. A couple of major reasons for that.

    1) we're not a monolithic group. So it's not just one entity, the voting public, deciding to throw the bums out. This is a group vs individual desire/behavior issue. Congress has an approval rating of <15%. So the individual desire for most people in the group is to say that we want to throw the bums out, and so that reflects the group desire. But the individual behavior is FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt). Not enough individuals vote in accordance with their stated desire such that the group behavior follows. As a collective group, because not enough individuals overcome their FUD and other issues to actually throw THEIR bums out, as a group they fail.

    2) Our binary voting system favors incumbents, and overemphasizes FUD. There's name recognition. Familiarity. Fear of different. Fear of other. The devil you know may be better than the devil you don't know. Lot's of human nature going on in the decision making of individuals that prevent them from actually voting against their own incumbent. Yet they're quite eager to throw everyone else's incumbent out if they could.

    Turnover of congress using the tools given will never happen on its own unless the system incentivizes turnover in congress. Right now it does not. It incentivizes voting for incumbents. There has to be an extraordinary reason to vote them out, and just on general principle isn't important enough to most people.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Term limits will only help if you can apply it to all government work. Without chasing the rest of the government out you will just institutionalize a "government" that does what it wants and simply waits until the next election. Call it deep state or whatever.

    This is a really good point. Once the executive branch's bureaucracies are led by people who've been there 4 decades, I think it's natural for them to become more entrenched and even corrupt, and a deep state can form. It may be that it's not a question of is there a deep state. Maybe the question is how can there not be? So maybe more of the senior positions need to be appointments.

    And for crying out loud, public unions have to go. That's the most absurd sheep**** ever. It's like the rank and file wolves bargaining with the pack leaders about divvying up the sheep's resources.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    After ending his primary challenge to President Trump, Joe Walsh says he will vote Democrat in 2020:

    “I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator."

    ... You're going to vote out a dictator? Do you hear yourself? Like, at all?

    Maybe he doesn't know what that word means? :dunno:
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    After ending his primary challenge to President Trump, Joe Walsh says he will vote Democrat in 2020:

    “I would rather have a socialist in the White House than a dictator."

    ... You're going to vote out a dictator? Do you hear yourself? Like, at all?

    Or, he knows history better than you do. Lol
    There has been more than one dictator that has been voted out of power. I think part of the issue, is that people default dictator to also mean tyrant. Which isn't true.
     

    Phase2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 9, 2011
    7,014
    27
    Or, he knows history better than you do. Lol
    There has been more than one dictator that has been voted out of power. I think part of the issue, is that people default dictator to also mean tyrant. Which isn't true.

    Hmmm... I seriously can't think of any. Who?
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,602
    149
    Columbus, OH
    This is a really good point. Once the executive branch's bureaucracies are led by people who've been there 4 decades, I think it's natural for them to become more entrenched and even corrupt, and a deep state can form. It may be that it's not a question of is there a deep state. Maybe the question is how can there not be? So maybe more of the senior positions need to be appointments.

    And for crying out loud, public unions have to go. That's the most absurd sheep**** ever. It's like the rank and file wolves bargaining with the pack leaders about divvying up the sheep's resources.

    Civil service protections have arguably outlived their usefulness. Without all of that dreck, you wouldn't have to make more positions appointments. You would make everybody serve at the pleasure of the president
     

    KLB

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Sep 12, 2011
    24,086
    77
    Porter County
    Civil service protections have arguably outlived their usefulness. Without all of that dreck, you wouldn't have to make more positions appointments. You would make everybody serve at the pleasure of the president
    It would be hard for the bureaucracy to function if you swapped all or most of them out every four to eight years. Of course that could be a feature. It has become much too large and powerful in this country.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,602
    149
    Columbus, OH
    It would be hard for the bureaucracy to function if you swapped all or most of them out every four to eight years. Of course that could be a feature. It has become much too large and powerful in this country.

    If an incoming president opposed to the prevailing ideology cannot trust them to carry out his instructions and indeed must endure their active hostility to his agenda, not sure the chaos of replacing them all would be any worse. It wouldn't need to be wholesale, only the ones who can't or won't do what they're told
     

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    12,216
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    If you have a flat tire, and an air compressor, you have the solution.
    Choosing not to do that doesn't change that.

    While I agree with jamil completely(and wish I would have said it as well as he) it comes down to semantics. I was using 'solution' as something that solves a problem but some of the definitions I found do not say that. They say something that 'could' solve the problem.
    Technically you are right, ineffective solutions and unused solutions are still solutions.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Or, he knows history better than you do. Lol
    There has been more than one dictator that has been voted out of power. I think part of the issue, is that people default dictator to also mean tyrant. Which isn't true.

    Probably the case people might use to assert Trump is a tyrant is based on false information. You can test that if you'd like and report back.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    Civil service protections have arguably outlived their usefulness. Without all of that dreck, you wouldn't have to make more positions appointments. You would make everybody serve at the pleasure of the president

    Having a complete turnover of government with each administration would be a cluster****. Also, I think there would be a lot of abuse of that power. I'm fine with just turning over the thing at a higher level.
     

    BugI02

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 4, 2013
    32,602
    149
    Columbus, OH
    Having a complete turnover of government with each administration would be a cluster****. Also, I think there would be a lot of abuse of that power. I'm fine with just turning over the thing at a higher level.

    #1913, and 'advise and [STRIKE]obstruct[/STRIKE] consent' would just be even more of a nightmare. Below the level of head of an organization, it should be like a business, if you don't do what you're told your future is freed up
     

    nonobaddog

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 10, 2015
    12,216
    113
    Tropical Minnesota
    Having a complete turnover of government with each administration would be a cluster****. Also, I think there would be a lot of abuse of that power. I'm fine with just turning over the thing at a higher level.

    Fortunately many government employees do nothing so they do not contribute to the problem. However kicking the can doesn't fix the problem either.
     

    jamil

    code ho
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 17, 2011
    62,424
    113
    Gtown-ish
    #1913, and 'advise and [STRIKE]obstruct[/STRIKE] consent' would just be even more of a nightmare. Below the level of head of an organization, it should be like a business, if you don't do what you're told your future is freed up
    There are cabinet heads and undersecretaries and deputies that get appointed. Below them are the career people who really run the departments. I think it would be fine for those people to decide that the career management should go. But below that, nah. Unless they’re not doing the job their manager tells them to do, they’d be immune from administration changes.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Top Bottom