PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on February 02, 2016, 11:31:08 AM
-
Are the American people tired of dirty election tactics?
If this is the greatest country on earth, and I think it is, wouldn't those wishing to TRULY LEAD it to greater greatness be more interested in laying out how they will do that, rather than destroying an opponent by laser focusing on the opponent's weaknesses, perceived or real? In fact, apparently, all candidates LIE in their ads, and this is a LEGAL practice.
I loathe it. What can we as Americans do to stop these ever-worsening tactics?
-
Are the American people tired of dirty election tactics?
If this is the greatest country on earth, and I think it is, wouldn't those wishing to TRULY LEAD it to greater greatness be more interested in laying out how they will do that, rather than destroying an opponent by laser focusing on the opponent's weaknesses, perceived or real? In fact, apparently, all candidates LIE in their ads, and this is a LEGAL practice.
I loathe it. What can we as Americans do to stop these ever-worsening tactics?
Stop electing crappy politicians like John Boehner, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, and the rest. Make there be a penalty for misbehaving, instead of great reward. Go back to having hte integrity to refuse support a candidate because of the letter after their name on the ballot, but instead the honor and integrity in their experience.
-
Stop electing crappy politicians like John Boehner, Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, and the rest. Make there be a penalty for misbehaving, instead of great reward. Go back to having hte integrity to refuse support a candidate because of the letter after their name on the ballot, but instead the honor and integrity in their experience.
The problem is that the election machine is a meat grinder, particularly if you're on the Right. You have to have a raging ego to even consider putting yourself and your family through it.
Quality people who would go a great job don't want to deal with it.
-
Read this and let me know what you think
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/index.html)
-
Based on that, Hillary's lies, which affect national security, are not forgivable.
-
The problem is half the population has below average intelligence.... and they don't know it. If there were only a way to only let people who really pay attention vote we would be much better off.
-
The problem is half the population has below average intelligence.... and they don't know it. If there were only a way to only let people who really pay attention vote we would be much better off.
There is a way! Our forefathers understood the likelihood of this problem.
But can you see the ape dung flying if you tried to tie voting to property ownership?
No, it's too late.
-
Read this and let me know what you think
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/24/politics/presidents-lie/index.html)
I admit I didn't read all of it. But I read enough to see that it is YET ANOTHER attempt to excuse Obama's behavior by pointing out that "everybody does it".
The article actually did have some good points and perspectives, but it quickly became obvious it was just another round of excuses for Obama's lies.
-
The problem is half the population has below average intelligence.... and they don't know it. If there were only a way to only let people who really pay attention vote we would be much better off.
I've proposed a system for this in the past.
Basically, each candidate would need to develop a 10 question multiple choice "quiz" about their policies. When you go on one of those nice touch-screen voting machines and select "Bob Smith", you would then be presented with this quiz. If you got <5 correct, then your vote would be silently discarded and not counted.
First off, it would ensure that only those people who actually knew something about the candidate they supported would be voting for that candidate. If you don't know what you're voting for, why should your vote count?
Second, as a secondary benefit, it would reduce the amount of "negative" campaigning. If you spend all your advertising money telling voters what a jackass Doug McKenzie is, then those who go and vote for you won't have a clue how to answer the questions. Candidates will be forced by necessity to spend their time and money on ads about what their platform is, and that will take money and time away from the negative attacks.
-
I've proposed a system for this in the past.
Basically, each candidate would need to develop a 10 question multiple choice "quiz" about their policies. When you go on one of those nice touch-screen voting machines and select "Bob Smith", you would then be presented with this quiz. If you got <5 correct, then your vote would be silently discarded and not counted.
First off, it would ensure that only those people who actually knew something about the candidate they supported would be voting for that candidate. If you don't know what you're voting for, why should your vote count?
Second, as a secondary benefit, it would reduce the amount of "negative" campaigning. If you spend all your advertising money telling voters what a jackass Doug McKenzie is, then those who go and vote for you won't have a clue how to answer the questions. Candidates will be forced by necessity to spend their time and money on ads about what their platform is, and that will take money and time away from the negative attacks.
unfortunately, the reality is that some people do poorly on tests. They are perfectly capable and intelligent, but actual tests are not their forte. I'm not sure how your proposal would address that.
-
I've proposed a system for this in the past.
Basically, each candidate would need to develop a 10 question multiple choice "quiz" about their policies. When you go on one of those nice touch-screen voting machines and select "Bob Smith", you would then be presented with this quiz. If you got <5 correct, then your vote would be silently discarded and not counted.
First off, it would ensure that only those people who actually knew something about the candidate they supported would be voting for that candidate. If you don't know what you're voting for, why should your vote count?
Second, as a secondary benefit, it would reduce the amount of "negative" campaigning. If you spend all your advertising money telling voters what a jackass Doug McKenzie is, then those who go and vote for you won't have a clue how to answer the questions. Candidates will be forced by necessity to spend their time and money on ads about what their platform is, and that will take money and time away from the negative attacks.
Anti-Great White North! Ah, I liked his brother Bob better. ;)
But to your point, who would judge the validity of the test? I envision the following:
Who does Secretary Clinton feel is at fault for global warming, lack of affordable healthcare, pollution, Lyme disease, obesity, gun violence, and the creation of Duck Dynasty and Stone Cold Steve Austin's Broken Skull Challenge?
A. Republicans
B. Republicans
C. Republicans
D. The Winter Warlock
.
Admittedly 25% of the average democrat voter will get that question wrong, but that still puts too much power in the hands of the candidates.
I'd prefer an 8th grade level quiz on the Constitution, or even the Citizenship test that immigrants must pass. By the way, do you think you'll pass? :D.
:D
Edit: D. Should be "The Winter Warlock." Why does Tapatalk frequently truncate words and totally ruin great jokes?
-
I've proposed a system for this in the past.
Basically, each candidate would need to develop a 10 question multiple choice "quiz" about their policies. When you go on one of those nice touch-screen voting machines and select "Bob Smith", you would then be presented with this quiz. If you got <5 correct, then your vote would be silently discarded and not counted.
First off, it would ensure that only those people who actually knew something about the candidate they supported would be voting for that candidate. If you don't know what you're voting for, why should your vote count?
Second, as a secondary benefit, it would reduce the amount of "negative" campaigning. If you spend all your advertising money telling voters what a jackass Doug McKenzie is, then those who go and vote for you won't have a clue how to answer the questions. Candidates will be forced by necessity to spend their time and money on ads about what their platform is, and that will take money and time away from the negative attacks.
The campaign commercials would give the answers to the quiz. Anyway, I'm on record calling this a terrible, anti-American idea, so I won't belabor the point.
-
The campaign commercials would give the answers to the quiz. Anyway, I'm on record calling this a terrible, anti-American idea, so I won't belabor the point.
I think a test is necessary for the survival of the Republic. Otherwise, these college kids of voting age will be able to shape the country:
https://www.facebook.com/salon/videos/10153420067871519/
-
Damn, why don't we just resort to doing elections the way the old USSR, Cuba, China and North Korea do them? :o
-
There is a way! Our forefathers understood the likelihood of this problem.
But can you see the ape dung flying if you tried to tie voting to property ownership?
No, it's too late.
Read about the history of presidential elections, particularly in the 19th century. None of this muck raking or lying about your opponent is new at all. Power is power and people want it at whatever cost. It was exactly the same back then and always has been.
-
I think a test is necessary for the survival of the Republic. Otherwise, these college kids of voting age will be able to shape the country:
https://www.facebook.com/salon/videos/10153420067871519/
Beware declinism, the usually-incorrect belief that a country or society is in a nose-dive from which they cannot pull up. Though it is from a few years ago, you may enjoy this article (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/falling-upwards-declinism-box-set). As I have aged (and don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly old and wise), I can feel a growing tendency to lift my cane and shake it in the general direction of the whipper snappers. This is entirely normal, as far as I can tell; the tendency to think that the good old days are gone, and everything is going to hell. And the feeling arises whether discussing "kids these days" or the functioning of our Republic.
But I actively fight against that. I do not think the default position should be a belief that the country is going to hell. After all, folks have been saying that for a century or more, and it has yet to come to fruition. So based on experience alone I think that is a poor conclusion to come to. Rather, I try to recognize that the world is changing, just as it always has, and as I get older, my ability to change with it is naturally in decline. So I must work diligently to understand the current world through the eyes of those who will continue to build it, rather than wholly through my own eyes or those of the folks who will soon leave it.
This is not to say that the older generations don't have fantastic input and wise advice. But I choose to believe the Republic is strong and not on its last legs, and work from that starting point. This is why I am wholly against drastic changes to fight against the "demise of the country". You may believe that the Republic will soon meet its demise. That's fine, as long as you understand there is a long line of people before you who believed the same and were proven wrong.
-
Huh? WTF are you talking about?
-
Huh? WTF are you talking about?
Stuff.
-
Read about the history of presidential elections, particularly in the 19th century. None of this muck raking or lying about your opponent is new at all. Power is power and people want it at whatever cost. It was exactly the same back then and always has been.
-
Beware declinism, the usually-incorrect belief that a country or society is in a nose-dive from which they cannot pull up. Though it is from a few years ago, you may enjoy this article (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/falling-upwards-declinism-box-set). As I have aged (and don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly old and wise), I can feel a growing tendency to lift my cane and shake it in the general direction of the whipper snappers. This is entirely normal, as far as I can tell; the tendency to think that the good old days are gone, and everything is going to hell. And the feeling arises whether discussing "kids these days" or the functioning of our Republic.
But I actively fight against that. I do not think the default position should be a belief that the country is going to hell. After all, folks have been saying that for a century or more, and it has yet to come to fruition. So based on experience alone I think that is a poor conclusion to come to. Rather, I try to recognize that the world is changing, just as it always has, and as I get older, my ability to change with it is naturally in decline. So I must work diligently to understand the current world through the eyes of those who will continue to build it, rather than wholly through my own eyes or those of the folks who will soon leave it.
This is not to say that the older generations don't have fantastic input and wise advice. But I choose to believe the Republic is strong and not on its last legs, and work from that starting point. This is why I am wholly against drastic changes to fight against the "demise of the country". You may believe that the Republic will soon meet its demise. That's fine, as long as you understand there is a long line of people before you who believed the same and were proven wrong.
I think the entire passage that you wrote is noteworthy, but this sentence smacks of a healthy dose of self-reflection and self-adjustment.
-
Beware declinism, the usually-incorrect belief that a country or society is in a nose-dive from which they cannot pull up. Though it is from a few years ago, you may enjoy this article (http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/falling-upwards-declinism-box-set). As I have aged (and don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly old and wise), I can feel a growing tendency to lift my cane and shake it in the general direction of the whipper snappers. This is entirely normal, as far as I can tell; the tendency to think that the good old days are gone, and everything is going to hell. And the feeling arises whether discussing "kids these days" or the functioning of our Republic.
But I actively fight against that. I do not think the default position should be a belief that the country is going to hell. After all, folks have been saying that for a century or more, and it has yet to come to fruition. So based on experience alone I think that is a poor conclusion to come to. Rather, I try to recognize that the world is changing, just as it always has, and as I get older, my ability to change with it is naturally in decline. So I must work diligently to understand the current world through the eyes of those who will continue to build it, rather than wholly through my own eyes or those of the folks who will soon leave it.
This is not to say that the older generations don't have fantastic input and wise advice. But I choose to believe the Republic is strong and not on its last legs, and work from that starting point. This is why I am wholly against drastic changes to fight against the "demise of the country". You may believe that the Republic will soon meet its demise. That's fine, as long as you understand there is a long line of people before you who believed the same and were proven wrong.
Fine and very fine. Just remember that "decline" is often used to describe "dysfunctional change." As I go about my day, I constantly observe and cogitate. Glacial, but sometimes extremely fast, changes are always occurring in the world I see. It doesn't take an exceptionally fine mind to extrapolate forward and back to see where we might be going. And, optimist and rationalist though I know we'd like to be, we are not going anywhere good when it comes to individual freedom, economic responsibility, and a host of other things that are critical to a functioning democracy.
-
Fine and very fine. Just remember that "decline" is often used to describe "dysfunctional change." As I go about my day, I constantly observe and cogitate. Glacial, but sometimes extremely fast, changes are always occurring in the world I see. It doesn't take an exceptionally fine mind to extrapolate forward and back to see where we might be going. And, optimist and rationalist though I know we'd like to be, we are not going anywhere good when it comes to individual freedom, economic responsibility, and a host of other things that are critical to a functioning democracy.
Very well said.
-
Speaking of tactics, this is lower than low. They're sure hoping no one actually reads the article and compares the speeches. Guess the headline will be enough for most people.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/02/plagiarism-marco-rubio-gets-called-out-for-stealing-president-obamas-speech-video/
-
Speaking of tactics, this is lower than low. They're sure hoping no one actually reads the article and compares the speeches. Guess the headline will be enough for most people.
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/02/02/plagiarism-marco-rubio-gets-called-out-for-stealing-president-obamas-speech-video/
Ouch. My head hurts. What a crock of crap. Though I love the name of the website - "BipartisanReport.com". What a pathetic stretch by obvious Obama jock sniffers.
-
Fine and very fine. Just remember that "decline" is often used to describe "dysfunctional change." As I go about my day, I constantly observe and cogitate. Glacial, but sometimes extremely fast, changes are always occurring in the world I see. It doesn't take an exceptionally fine mind to extrapolate forward and back to see where we might be going. And, optimist and rationalist though I know we'd like to be, we are not going anywhere good when it comes to individual freedom, economic responsibility, and a host of other things that are critical to a functioning democracy.
I think the timeline from which we can understand what progress looks like is often longer than we tend to consider. Can you say that individual freedom of the citizens of the US has declined in, say, the last 100 years? I would argue the opposite, given women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the 24th Amendment, the 26th Amendment, and other points. Certainly, it sometimes feels like we take one step forward and two steps back. And sometimes we don't see the forest for the trees - giving "freedoms" to one group while abridging a freedom of another group. Were we to graph the line of progress on a short timeline, I imagine a jagged line with peaks and troughs, representing the halting and sometimes (using your word) glacial pace of it all. But I firmly believe that a scroll of the mouse wheel that zooms us out to a timeline of decades and centuries would reveal a relatively-smooth line with a positive slope. After all, we're not dead yet! :)
But isn't it interesting that we're here in a thread where people suggest implementing a test to exercise voting rights. And yet, those same people are decrying the loss of individual freedoms and the supposed decline of our Republic. What a strange juxtaposition!
-
Guess I should expect that kind of high-altitude, big picture thinking from a pilot, no? :) If you back up far enough, or squint, or take the loooooooooooong view, everything looks smooth and small, manageable, kind of like the little orderly world you see from a plane.
I look at it more like this. We live in the jagged peaks and valleys to which you refer. I would prefer, though human history shows me to be overly optimistic if not downright naive, that we as a species smooth out the line as best we can in the spacetime ( :))) in which we currently dwell.
As for this thread's discussion on criteria for voting, hear hear! En masse, those voters are going to pilot the plane we are all on. I see your argument as akin to saying that such things as the Fall of the Roman Empire are just blips on the timeline of humanity, a timeline which actually shows progression away from bad and toward good.
But I believe one way to avoid the jagged bad is to learn from the jagged past. Bread and circuses, anyone?
-
I enjoy your thoughts and writings, Becky! :)