Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 34

Thread: Polarization in Poland: A Warning from Europe

  1. #16
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,177
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    They picked the wrong guy for the job, by an order of magnitude. Donald Trump's sole and overriding interest is Donald Trump.
    You could say this about every president aka 'wrong guy' going back to Washington because there is always a losing side : )

    Gimme me more

  2. #17
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,258
    Promised Piłsudski but did Dmowski. Arsehats.
    Last edited by snapper; 20 Sep 18, at 23:09.

  3. #18
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So one need not bother to vote then ? Why vote. In what way am i to interpret the above

    What happens next. Voter turnout reduces. If this sets in you get fewer the next time around and so on.
    And? I'll say it again: For the past 230 years, the people of the United States have not elected the President. So what if fewer people show up? Their votes don't matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    This has been pointed out before. You don't need three million votes in California to go from 54 to 55 in the EC. You need those three million spread out across the country to make a bigger difference. So No people didn't turn out to vote across the country where it was required.
    Yes, I know that. I'm not commenting on Hillary Clinton's shitty campaign strategy or her snotty elitist comments about a large chunk of the country.[/QUOTE]

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Winning the popular vote means squat if it doesn't play by the rules.
    Which in turns depends on your candidate not being a f-cking moron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    what makes it happen is a loss of confidence in the electoral process.
    If 2016 couldn't make that happen, then nothing will. Let's be honest; Neither party wants the slightest change in how things are done, not even the Democrats. Anything that upsets the painstakingly-crafted-and-rigged election system won't even get past the first legislative step. Ditto things like term limits. You might as well ask these Congressional whores to work for free. It Will Never Happen, Period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Aussies can't bear the thought so they make voting compulsory
    Fortunately such Orwellian bullshit won't fly here

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You could say this about every president aka 'wrong guy' going back to Washington because there is always a losing side : )

    Gimme me more
    No, I'm saying that counting on Donald Trump to do what's right for the country, or even make a pretense of it, is like believing that wild tiger won't immediately turn you into an afternoon snack without a second thought.

    Donald Trump does what is most advantageous for Donald Trump. He's a common thief in a decent suit.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    And? I'll say it again: For the past 230 years, the people of the United States have not elected the President. So what if fewer people show up? Their votes don't matter.
    ???
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles!

    Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain!

  5. #20
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,177
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    And? I'll say it again: For the past 230 years, the people of the United States have not elected the President. So what if fewer people show up? Their votes don't matter.
    You're not addressing the implications of 'votes don't matter'. I find this idea a good deal more pernicious than any sum total of foreign interference alleged or real in your democratic process.

    It is exactly what authoritarian states assert and use to justify their present system by creating a false equivalence with free countries.

    If 2016 couldn't make that happen, then nothing will. Let's be honest; Neither party wants the slightest change in how things are done, not even the Democrats. Anything that upsets the painstakingly-crafted-and-rigged election system won't even get past the first legislative step. Ditto things like term limits. You might as well ask these Congressional whores to work for free. It Will Never Happen, Period.
    See, I'd argue the exact opposite. If people were complacent before that election I'd like to think they are not right now. The test of this assertion will be comparing voter turnouts in 2020 with 2016. Whether there will be more participation as i expect, the same or less which would be a bad sign.

    The fact that such a person could actually win office proves the system is working. Because if the system was rigged no way could such a person enter office.

    I remember Benny saying in 2010 that money interests were all that mattered and you vote didn't matter. This is what a young American that follows world affairs thinks!! Well, a guy with a billion less won.

    I think we are misunderstanding each other here. What i'm saying is if people continue to not participate in the voting process there will be a change later on and not for the better. Right now, you can elect a sock puppet into office and still have the country more or less work. More of the wrong people get in they start to weaken institutions that look after the public interest and go after checks and balances.

    Reagan said we are always one election away from a dictatorship.


    Fortunately such Orwellian bullshit won't fly here
    We are fortunate to date not to have to consider such an option.


    Donald Trump does what is most advantageous for Donald Trump. He's a common thief in a decent suit.
    A pol working for his backers who agreed to sponsor him in exchange for windfall profits should he enter office. Elections are expensive. In my country they call this corruption, in the west its known as corporate lobbying.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 21 Sep 18, at 10:48.

  6. #21
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,258
    The argument in Poland is not about who won an election; PiS (Law and Justice) won and nobody disputes that. I stupidly helped them get elected - but hey hindsight is too late.


    It is about what being Polish means or should mean. Is it about being "Polish" alone? Speaking the language and Catholic, family lived there since the Sarmatians type idea that I call the 'Little Poland' outlook almost akin to a type of 'Polish race' view - most pronounced by Roman Dmowski in the 1920s/30s or about a 'Greater Poland' looking both east and west and recognising and embracing out Lithuanian, Belorussian, Ukrainian cousins - looking for a new Commonwealth. For the former laws are merely the instrument of the majority to serve the 'Polish people' but for the latter laws must serve all people. That is what I mean by they promised Piłsudski, who famously wanted to create an 'intermarium' - a coalition of states between the seas (Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas) and are doing Dmowski who was basically a Little Polander.

    To me Poland must aspire to be greater than a narrow "speak Polish and am Catholic" almost genetic base; it should be a leader of Central European nations and I had hoped this Government would step up. This Croatian idea of a 'three seas initiative' has zero allocated funds and misses Ukraine and Belarus - precisely those countries where the threat is likely to come from. It took the UK to fund Belsat TV (a free Belarussian TV service broadcast from Poland into Belarus) going because this idiot Government wanted to close it down under the guise of 'merging' it. They expelled Lyudmyla Kozlovska - a Ukrainian human rights activist who is married to a Pole and was living in Warsawa, they have politicised the judiciary, threaten to ban abortion, stupidly argue about historical issues and past wrongs - from the Wolyn 'massacre' to the Smolensk air crash - over and over again as if it mattered today. They are idiots of the highest order practising Dmowski through and through. Those that refuse to lead end up being led and unless this Polish Government gets a new enlightenment fast that is where Poland will find itself.

  7. #22
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    ???
    The U.S. has always used an electoral college system to elect the President. No where in the U.S. Constitution does the words "popular vote" appear. For that matter, the phrase "Electoral College" isn't found in the Constitution either, only "electors"

    This is why 5 presidents (and counting) have held the office without winning the popular vote

    Twenty-one states do not have laws compelling their electors to vote for a pledged candidate. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to penalize faithless electors, although these have never been enforced and a faithless elector may only be punished after they vote. In lieu of penalizing a faithless elector, some states, such as Michigan and Minnesota, specify the faithless elector's vote is void.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  8. #23
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,542
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You're not addressing the implications of 'votes don't matter'. I find this idea a good deal more pernicious than any sum total of foreign interference alleged or real in your democratic process.
    I can't help what the facts are: The Electoral College elects the President, not the people of the United States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    It is exactly what authoritarian states assert and use to justify their present system by creating a false equivalence with free countries.
    That's what we're approaching here in the United States: Rule by Presidential fiat. Executive Orders are replacing actual legislation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    See, I'd argue the exact opposite. If people were complacent before that election I'd like to think they are not right now. The test of this assertion will be comparing voter turnouts in 2020 with 2016. Whether there will be more participation as i expect, the same or less which would be a bad sign.
    100% agree with you. This election will be IMHO, paradoxically, more important than 2016. People wanted the "change" pendulum to truly swing, after the bitter disappointment of Barack Obama and now they've seen it in action for 2 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The fact that such a person could actually win office proves the system is working. Because if the system was rigged no way could such a person enter office.
    The system isn't "rigged" per se. It's simply calcified over time by the two parties into a semi-predictable farce. Donald Trump's election was an outlier largely thanks to the ascendancy of social media and (ironically) that other group of whores, the ratings-hungry mainstream media. I had confidently asserted several times that Donald Trump couldn't afford to self-finance a general election like he'd always been bragged about. The mainstream media made a liar out of me by contributing billions of dollars worth of free advertising to the Trump Campaign.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I remember Benny saying in 2010 that money interests were all that mattered and you vote didn't matter. This is what a young American that follows world affairs thinks!! Well, a guy with a billion less won.
    See my comment above. Trump's true genius was getting the MSM to finance his campaign. He didn't need billions. Those billions were handed to him on a silver platter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    I think we are misunderstanding each other here. What i'm saying is if people continue to not participate in the voting process there will be a change later on and not for the better. Right now, you can elect a sock puppet into office and still have the country more or less work. More of the wrong people get in they start to weaken institutions that look after the public interest and go after checks and balances.

    Reagan said we are always one election away from a dictatorship.
    All of that is entirely possible, yeah. But until the system is overhauled (drastically), what we'll continue to get is exactly what's sitting in the Oval Office.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, than to take rank with those poor, timid spirits who know neither victory nor defeat ~ Theodore Roosevelt

  9. #24
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,848
    oracle,

    wanted to amplify a bit of what TH mentioned here:

    I can't help what the facts are: The Electoral College elects the President, not the people of the United States.
    isn't it interesting how

    1. the President of the United States lost the popular vote,
    2. the current majority in the Senate got fewer votes than the minority, and
    3. that for the current minority in the House must win by over +5% in the next election to win a bare majority?

    the US election system was "rigged" in the first place because of the Founder inclination towards their fellow rural landholders.

    the expansion of the voting pool through the suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement was enormously important, but the structure by which the votes are counted is still badly flawed. between urbanization and gerrymandering, as an issue, this is approaching Constitutional crisis-- not just in terms of the executive but also the judiciary.
    Last edited by astralis; 24 Sep 18, at 20:14.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  10. #25
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    9,177
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    the US election system was "rigged" in the first place because of the Founder inclination towards their fellow rural landholders.

    the expansion of the voting pool through the suffrage movement and the Civil Rights movement was enormously important, but the structure by which the votes are counted is still badly flawed. between urbanization and gerrymandering, as an issue, this is approaching Constitutional crisis-- not just in terms of the executive but also the judiciary.
    The way i look at this is it allows to balance out high density with low density states. Otherwise the states with the largest numbers end up having an advantage over others. At some point this will threaten your union. You could argue the other way that the votes of people in low density states are worth more than high density. Which is worse ?

  11. #26
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The way i look at this is it allows to balance out high density with low density states. Otherwise the states with the largest numbers end up having an advantage over others. At some point this will threaten your union. You could argue the other way that the votes of people in low density states are worth more than high density. Which is worse ?
    Right now the balance is decidedly shifted towards a few states having disproportionate electing power over others (i.e., battleground states like Ohio, Iowa, etc.). Having elections shifted towards a straight popular vote would actually give individual voters more equal power across all the states, and would force campaigns to re-evaluate their strategies to appeal to a broader electorate--rather than pandering to a select few groups.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  12. #27
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,848
    Having elections shifted towards a straight popular vote would actually give individual voters more equal power across all the states, and would force campaigns to re-evaluate their strategies to appeal to a broader electorate--rather than pandering to a select few groups.
    and this would result in less voter apathy, and thus reduce reliance on getting out the base.

    we've completely changed the legal pool of voters from what the Founders envisioned, but we have not changed the warped system by which the votes actually change political outcomes. it's somewhat akin to those places where people can get a college education but come out with no jobs at the end-- it just creates festering disappointment and cynicism, poison for a republic.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  13. #28
    Senior Contributor Red Team's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Oct 11
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    800
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    and this would result in less voter apathy, and thus reduce reliance on getting out the base.

    we've completely changed the legal pool of voters from what the Founders envisioned, but we have not changed the warped system by which the votes actually change political outcomes. it's somewhat akin to those places where people can get a college education but come out with no jobs at the end-- it just creates festering disappointment and cynicism, poison for a republic.
    Astralis,

    The problem is, the issue of the electoral college as an institution has become so incredibly partisan that I don't see a reform of it happening in our lifetimes. Unless the GOP itself experiences a presidential election where they win the popular vote but lose the electorate, I can't foresee that they would be reaching across the aisle anytime soon.
    "Draft beer, not people."

  14. #29
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    13,848
    Astralis,

    The problem is, the issue of the electoral college as an institution has become so incredibly partisan that I don't see a reform of it happening in our lifetimes. Unless the GOP itself experiences a presidential election where they win the popular vote but lose the electorate, I can't foresee that they would be reaching across the aisle anytime soon.
    i completely agree. any reform will be predicated upon Dems winning all the levers of power, to include a supermajority in the Senate. that won't happen soon either but it'll be a lot sooner than the GOP reaching across the aisle.

    but if it happens, Dems won't be content with just policy victories only. there will be political consequences, just as how the Republicans used the 2010 midterms to shape the map decisively in their favor.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor GVChamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    26 Aug 06
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,572
    Packing the Supreme Court and trying to change the Senate allocation is the point where you call it quits. The Supreme Court has been at 9 justices since basically the Jackson Era and the only person who tried to pack the Court was FDR (who was soundly drubbed for it). The Senate allocation cannot be changed, not even by amendment. Smaller states cannot be deprived of their representation without their permission.

    Both would be solid signals that the US is not workable and should be dissolved.
    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Poland begs Germany to Salvage Poland
    By Ray in forum International Politics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 17 May 07,, 08:23
  2. India developing missile warning system with Europe's EADS
    By Tronic in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09 Feb 07,, 23:58
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 24 Apr 06,, 18:00
  4. Europe's big boys encounter a new bad boy in Poland
    By Gio in forum International Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17 Dec 03,, 03:12

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •