Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Brexit Vote
Author Message
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #101
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 11:31 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.
Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests. The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

I'll give it a shot:

Balanced budget: Neither party at the moment, so you could go back to the last president to achieve one --> Democrat.

perhaps go back to the last makeup of the legislature that achieved one ---> Republican

then ask yourself which branch has the 'power of the purse'. It is not the Executive, mind you.

Quote:Health Care: You want "something" as opposed to "nothing" --> Democrat

Health Care: You want everything "something" as opposed to for "nothing" ----> Democrat

FIFY

Quote:Lower, Flatter, Broader Income Taxes: Republican, unless you also include corporations in the "broader" category, then Democrat.

Actually to go 'Democrat' you would need to stand for more corporate taxes on top of the already highest corporate tax in the developed world.

Quote:Not using the military --> Democrat

Tell that to Muammar Kaddafi the next you see him.

Or the next Kosovarian you encounter.

Quote:Elimination of "ineffective and counter-productive regulations" --> That's a platitute both parties can get behind.

Please do state *any* regulation that Democrats would like to minimize.

Quote:4th Amendment: Democrat

Please state any 4th Amendment provision that Republican's do not back?

If you want to make an issue of 4th Amendment in the context of NSA and ****, well, hate to break it to you buddy but the Obama-dudes were just as bad as those evil nasty Republicans. Just ask the message sifters who haunted the FISA court in late 2015 - early 2016 for that one....

When it comes to the 4th Amendment as applied to the press, the Obama administration skunks the fk out of what any Republican administration (aside from Nixon) has done in the last half-century.

Here's one that should be added:

Quote:Pro 1st Amendment -- Republican

Quote:But in all seriousness, it seems to me that you favor a lot of what I might call broad Democratic policy goals, but you prefer conservative/market-based approaches to achieving those goals.

No offense but many of what you term 'broad based policy goals' of the Democratic Party really dont seem to be so in practice.

Quote:So you might be a conservative in some sort of abstract philosophical sense, but in terms of the practical political fights we're actually having, you sure look like a Democrat to me.

The fact that the major point of progressivism is the promotion of vast and 'liberal' use of government power and regulation to achieve their ends cuts drastically away from your thesis here.

Progressivism is not the promotion of individual liberties and choice. In the slightest. You tend to forget that the path to at least the shared in common goals is drastically different -- and that the path is horribly important to the crux of libertarianism.

Tanq, I actually laughed at the bolded section.

The response that was immediately below that was a regulation that Democrats want to minimize.
03-14-2019 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 11:31 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 10:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Shortest answer: I agree with more of their policies than with those of the Republican party and think that government isn't the problem, and can actually be the solution in many situations.
Short, but longer answer: The republican party has become too anti-government for my taste at all levels (federal and state). I believe that a well-funded government can provide significant benefit to its populace beyond providing for the common defense, by correcting a lot of things that our free market economy won't naturally correct and acting as a bit of a watchdog. I think our government should be considering environmental concerns and worker protections, developing a better social safety net, providing and restoring world-class infrastructure to support our economy, and on and on. I find that the current state of the Republican party is one that only cares about cutting taxes, reducing regulations (regardless of their benefit), and catering to business interests to the exclusion of other interests. The best society, IMO, is neither one that is completely controlled by government or completely free of it. And I do not think the current iteration of the democratic party goes too far left in terms of government control, but I do think the current iteration of the republican party has gone too far right. I think Dems are more likely to create a government that supports the country's economy, whereas Reps are more likely to create a government that is laissez faire towards it.

I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

I'll give it a shot:

Balanced budget: Neither party at the moment, so you could go back to the last president to achieve one --> Democrat.

perhaps go back to the last makeup of the legislature that achieved one ---> Republican

then ask yourself which branch has the 'power of the purse'. It is not the Executive, mind you.

Quote:Health Care: You want "something" as opposed to "nothing" --> Democrat

Health Care: You want everything "something" as opposed to for "nothing" ----> Democrat

FIFY

Quote:Lower, Flatter, Broader Income Taxes: Republican, unless you also include corporations in the "broader" category, then Democrat.

Actually to go 'Democrat' you would need to stand for more corporate taxes on top of the already highest corporate tax in the developed world.

Quote:Not using the military --> Democrat

Tell that to Muammar Kaddafi the next you see him.

Or the next Kosovarian you encounter.

Quote:Elimination of "ineffective and counter-productive regulations" --> That's a platitute both parties can get behind.

Please do state *any* regulation that Democrats would like to minimize.

Quote:4th Amendment: Democrat

Please state any 4th Amendment provision that Republican's do not back?

If you want to make an issue of 4th Amendment in the context of NSA and ****, well, hate to break it to you buddy but the Obama-dudes were just as bad as those evil nasty Republicans. Just ask the message sifters who haunted the FISA court in late 2015 - early 2016 for that one....

When it comes to the 4th Amendment as applied to the press, the Obama administration skunks the fk out of what any Republican administration (aside from Nixon) has done in the last half-century.

Here's one that should be added:

Quote:Pro 1st Amendment -- Republican

Quote:But in all seriousness, it seems to me that you favor a lot of what I might call broad Democratic policy goals, but you prefer conservative/market-based approaches to achieving those goals.

No offense but many of what you term 'broad based policy goals' of the Democratic Party really dont seem to be so in practice.

Quote:So you might be a conservative in some sort of abstract philosophical sense, but in terms of the practical political fights we're actually having, you sure look like a Democrat to me.

The fact that the major point of progressivism is the promotion of vast and 'liberal' use of government power and regulation to achieve their ends cuts drastically away from your thesis here.

Progressivism is not the promotion of individual liberties and choice. In the slightest. You tend to forget that the path to at least the shared in common goals is drastically different -- and that the path is horribly important to the crux of libertarianism.

Tanq, I actually laughed at the bolded section.

The response that was immediately below that was a regulation that Democrats want to minimize.

Fair enough.

Perhaps we should balance the 'legalize pot' against the ream-tons of other regulation and bureaucracy that the Democrats (progressives) seem to get a hard on for. Does that sound about right?

I mean Obamacare by itself is responsible for on the order of 300 volumes of regulation at this point, but 'legalize pot' more than makes up for that crap ton of regulatory effort. Sounds like a fair trade to me...

To have someone say that they are for 'less regulation' with that sort of track record is in itself pretty fking laughable in my book....
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2019 01:02 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-14-2019 12:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #103
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 11:23 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  So, about Brexit . . . :)

LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

The same 'plus minus' issue that you see in the proposition process can be mirrored in the majoritarian stance prevalent in the 'down with the Electoral College' and 'poor California only gets two Senators' positions which are cried out by some.

Mirrored-ish. I think the electoral college issue is more of a minority control issue, as opposed to a simple majority control issue. The difference is that generally the minority can't make make/pass legislation, but they can keep it from being made/passed by not supporting it. So for Brexit, the minority group didn't have the ability to keep the results from being put into place. For the EC, the minority party was able to create a result and the majority couldn't keep it from being put into place.

Also, I think any comments about the Senate are idiotic - the House and the Senate balance each other out. Since the president is only a single position, the fact that a minority of the country can select the leader of the Executive branch creates a situation that is a bit odd, to say the least.

I understand having positions to protect minority rights (like having vote percentage thresholds so a minority party must be consulted), but that's not the issue people bring up with the EC.
03-14-2019 12:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #104
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 11:31 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can't answer the question why am I a republican, because I'm not. I don't agree with enough of either party's policies and issue positions to be a member. Republicans are too far right on social issues (drugs, abortion, LGBT rights) and not far enough right on fiscal issues. Democrats are now too far left on social issues and not even on the same planet on fiscal issues. I don't like republicans, but I think of them more as incompetent than as the enemy. I do think of the Bernie/AOC/Warren wing of the democrats as my enemy, and I see that wing as being ascendant in that party. To me republicans are the stupid party and democrats are the evil party. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I just wish my enemies had more competent enemies.

I favor a balanced budget; universal health care based on the Bismarck universal private insurance/care approach; a guaranteed basic income, based on Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder prebate/prefund (basically NIT in a consumption tax environment); lower, flatter, and broader (fewer exclusions and deductions) income taxes; a consumption tax; making social security sound by eliminating the wage cap, pushing the full payment age back slowly, and adding a privatized component; having the strongest military in the world by leaps and bounds, but never having to use it because nobody dares pick on us and our non-interventionist (like Switzerland, not isolationist like North Korea) foreign policy means we don't go picking on them; elimination of ineffective and counter-productive regulations; a streamlined regulatory process with real rights for citizens subject to regulation; legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of other drugs, at least simple possession; and strong support for the 2nd and 4th Amendments (without them, all the rest are worthless), among other positions. Name me a party that is is generally in agreement on all or most of those, and I will support them. Hell, name me a party that even agrees on some of them.

I strongly oppose massive income and wealth redistribution because I know of no nation or state that has implemented it without either abandoning it or failing. As to the question of too big or too small, I think government is too big in the US today. In particular, I think the federal government is too big and intrusive, that within the federal government too much power has gone from the legislative branch to the executive and judicial branches, and within the executive branch way, way too much power as gone to the unelected and unaccountable alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies.

I think the current democrats, or at least the ascendant Bernie/AOC/Warren wing, are well to the left of the so-called European "socialist democracies," where left is defined as socialism, communism, or fascism (which are three peas in the same pod, at least economically). I favor capitalism with a safety net, which is how I would describe "socialist" Europe.

I'll give it a shot:

Balanced budget: Neither party at the moment, so you could go back to the last president to achieve one --> Democrat.

perhaps go back to the last makeup of the legislature that achieved one ---> Republican

then ask yourself which branch has the 'power of the purse'. It is not the Executive, mind you.

Quote:Health Care: You want "something" as opposed to "nothing" --> Democrat

Health Care: You want everything "something" as opposed to for "nothing" ----> Democrat

FIFY

Quote:Lower, Flatter, Broader Income Taxes: Republican, unless you also include corporations in the "broader" category, then Democrat.

Actually to go 'Democrat' you would need to stand for more corporate taxes on top of the already highest corporate tax in the developed world.

Quote:Not using the military --> Democrat

Tell that to Muammar Kaddafi the next you see him.

Or the next Kosovarian you encounter.

Quote:Elimination of "ineffective and counter-productive regulations" --> That's a platitute both parties can get behind.

Please do state *any* regulation that Democrats would like to minimize.

Quote:4th Amendment: Democrat

Please state any 4th Amendment provision that Republican's do not back?

If you want to make an issue of 4th Amendment in the context of NSA and ****, well, hate to break it to you buddy but the Obama-dudes were just as bad as those evil nasty Republicans. Just ask the message sifters who haunted the FISA court in late 2015 - early 2016 for that one....

When it comes to the 4th Amendment as applied to the press, the Obama administration skunks the fk out of what any Republican administration (aside from Nixon) has done in the last half-century.

Here's one that should be added:

Quote:Pro 1st Amendment -- Republican

Quote:But in all seriousness, it seems to me that you favor a lot of what I might call broad Democratic policy goals, but you prefer conservative/market-based approaches to achieving those goals.

No offense but many of what you term 'broad based policy goals' of the Democratic Party really dont seem to be so in practice.

Quote:So you might be a conservative in some sort of abstract philosophical sense, but in terms of the practical political fights we're actually having, you sure look like a Democrat to me.

The fact that the major point of progressivism is the promotion of vast and 'liberal' use of government power and regulation to achieve their ends cuts drastically away from your thesis here.

Progressivism is not the promotion of individual liberties and choice. In the slightest. You tend to forget that the path to at least the shared in common goals is drastically different -- and that the path is horribly important to the crux of libertarianism.

Tanq, I actually laughed at the bolded section.

The response that was immediately below that was a regulation that Democrats want to minimize.

Then we will balance the 'legalize pot' against the ream-tons of other regulation and bureaucracy that the Democrats (progressives) seem to get a hard on for. Does that sound about right?

Sure - Dems are definitely more likely to propose legislation.

But you asked for any instance where Dems wanted to minimize regulations, and an examples was one line below. It was funny.
03-14-2019 01:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #105
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  
(03-13-2019 01:03 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  LOL.

Today's vote will almost certainly reject a "hard Brexit"...

(Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

The same 'plus minus' issue that you see in the proposition process can be mirrored in the majoritarian stance prevalent in the 'down with the Electoral College' and 'poor California only gets two Senators' positions which are cried out by some.

Mirrored-ish. I think the electoral college issue is more of a minority control issue, as opposed to a simple majority control issue. The difference is that generally the minority can't make make/pass legislation, but they can keep it from being made/passed by not supporting it. So for Brexit, the minority group didn't have the ability to keep the results from being put into place. For the EC, the minority party was able to create a result and the majority couldn't keep it from being put into place.

It is an issue of 'minority-control' only when one is completely oblivious of, or utterly ignorant of, or highly antagonistic to the role of state sovereignty in the Federal system, mind you.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2019 01:17 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-14-2019 01:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,622
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 106
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #106
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 06:49 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  (Sorry for the non sequiturs. I'm not trying to be funny or appear borderline schizophrenic.)

"Hard Brexit" and "soft Brexit" are political fictions.

The rejection of a possible "hard Brexit" ('no deal' with the EU and trading under WTO rules) was by the Parliament and not the British people. It is an ex post facto power grab by politicians that cannot be supported in law.

Many of the British politicians believe they are above the 'hoi polloi' or 'great unwashed' and are virtually unaccountable as long as they control the narrative. Consequently when an anti-Brexit MP was jeered as a "Nazi" and a "Fascist" they called for police intervention to end this 'harassment'.

One must remember that the UK only reluctantly agreed to membership in the European Economic Community ("EEC"). The EEC the UK joined in 1973 is not the EU of 2019. Thankfully the UK was never fully integrated into the European Union.

After the Brexit referendum a Chinese minister rightfully observed, "This is a rejection of globalization." Not all Parliamentarians are anti-globalists, but a majority of the British people apparently are.

(I voted to leave.)

To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

The same 'plus minus' issue that you see in the proposition process can be mirrored in the majoritarian stance prevalent in the 'down with the Electoral College' and 'poor California only gets two Senators' positions which are cried out by some.

Mirrored-ish. I think the electoral college issue is more of a minority control issue, as opposed to a simple majority control issue. The difference is that generally the minority can't make make/pass legislation, but they can keep it from being made/passed by not supporting it. So for Brexit, the minority group didn't have the ability to keep the results from being put into place. For the EC, the minority party was able to create a result and the majority couldn't keep it from being put into place.

It is an issue of 'minority-control' only when one is completely oblivious of, or utterly ignorant of, or highly antagonistic to the role of state sovereignty in the Federal system, mind you.

No it isn't. One can understand that role perfectly clearly and see that the current system creates a situation where a minority of people can select the leader of the Executive Branch. Whether that is be design isn't germane to the discussion of whether a situation resulting in minority control is appropriate.
03-14-2019 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,079
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Brexit Vote
(03-14-2019 01:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 01:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 12:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(03-14-2019 10:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bolded, isn't the point of electing politicians so that the people do not have to be involved with every single legislative decision because the people as a whole don't have the time or energy, to be well informed about the ramifications of those legislative items? Isn't any decision made by the legislative body that doesn't conform to the will of a simple majority inherently a power grab, based on that comment?

Brexit passed with less than 52% of the vote - hardly a healthy majority for a decision with serious implications. I have no idea why that referendum wasn't set at 60% or above, which would have at least indicated that an overwhelming majority of citizens supported the referendum, as opposed to just a simple majority.

I go back and forth about how I feel about putting legislative decision on a ballot because the people as a whole generally don't have the time to really dig into the implications of the decision. For example, Prop B passed here in Houston, which raised fire fighter salaries, and it is wreaking havoc now. However, putting these initiatives on ballots is the ultimate power to the people, which is definitely a positive. Sort of thinking out loud here...

The same 'plus minus' issue that you see in the proposition process can be mirrored in the majoritarian stance prevalent in the 'down with the Electoral College' and 'poor California only gets two Senators' positions which are cried out by some.

Mirrored-ish. I think the electoral college issue is more of a minority control issue, as opposed to a simple majority control issue. The difference is that generally the minority can't make make/pass legislation, but they can keep it from being made/passed by not supporting it. So for Brexit, the minority group didn't have the ability to keep the results from being put into place. For the EC, the minority party was able to create a result and the majority couldn't keep it from being put into place.

It is an issue of 'minority-control' only when one is completely oblivious of, or utterly ignorant of, or highly antagonistic to the role of state sovereignty in the Federal system, mind you.

No it isn't. One can understand that role perfectly clearly and see that the current system creates a situation where a minority of people can select the leader of the Executive Branch. Whether that is be design isn't germane to the discussion of whether a situation resulting in minority control is appropriate.

(Again) *Only* when you utterly ignore the role of state sovereign power, and *only* when you ignore the literal wording of the cornerstone of the Federal system, and *only* when you change the standard of counting, do you ever come up with a 'minority control' implementation. Your three sentence response only does that, seemingly.

You do realize that people do not elect the President, right? Perhaps you can tell me what entity(ies) hold the ability to do so?

The problem is that you want to change the context of the actual implementation from 'counting red marbles' to 'counting marbles' in order to shoehorn your definition of 'minority control' in the way that *you* want it to read. And, hate to tell you lad, the actual definition of *who* the players are in the game, and *what* marbles are counted, and *why* those marbles are counted in the way that they are do not fit your definition.

And you are correct, people may not agree with that definitional status. No doubt many do. But the definition of 'minority' doesnt mean whatever arbitrary line you may wish it to be -- even if that other whatever arbitrary line might have a rational basis.

And, to repeat the third time, to claim that the EC provides a 'minority rule' status only underlies the proposition of what *you* believe should be the proper population driving the selection, not the specific population as defined in 'the rules of the game'.
(This post was last modified: 03-14-2019 03:06 PM by tanqtonic.)
03-14-2019 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.