When Conspiracists Psychoanalyze

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rory

Senior Member.
But that is drifting off the topic. It is not the topic here.

Well, gee, I had no idea there was such a thing as "on topic" in this thread. But I catch your drift.

PS A jolly interesting little tidbit that I find fascinating and useful:

When not to capitalise president

Other than [directly before a president's name or when used in place of a president's name, as in Hello, Mr. President] president should be lowercase. Take this sentence for example: The president lives in the White House. Here, president is neither being used as a title before a person’s name, nor as a direct address, so it isn’t capitalised.

President doesn’t get capitalised if it comes after a person’s name, as in Barack Obama, president of the United States, or if the name that follows is being used as a nonessential phrase offset by commas. For example: The 42nd president, Bill Clinton, was born on August 19, 1946.

https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/when-do-you-capitalize-president
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
(1) Applying "direct democracy" to the President (and VP) selection is what the supporters of the "popular vote" say they want. It is feasible, it adds nothing to the logistics of elections. Simply add the numbers differently.
if im misunderstanding something, re: "logistics" bear with me. i'm not sure it's simply add numbers differently, you'd have to buy a lot more poll machines i think. Based on my experience, a lot of people don't vote now because they know which way their state will vote.
like NY :( if these numbers are int he city that could be big problems, as they already have poll machine access issues.

1665188225702.png
2016?
1665188828129.png
https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/5031...ege-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state
 

econ41

Senior Member
PS A jolly interesting little tidbit that I find fascinating and useful:
That is not my only bad habit. I'm usually pedantic with logic and most aspects of grammar.
HOWEVER:
I habitually get my " and ' quotes arse about. Developed the habit for online discussions about 15 - 12 years back. The ' version wasn't easy to see. Not good for a half-trained lawyer who should stick strictly to the "Style Manual" >> I've been trying to break the habit....but.....

I rarely give a thought to the finesse aspects of capitalisation that you describe.

However it is a matter of honour for me to avoid the US plot to create a world surplus of unused 'U's. Colour me wrong.

I stick with my Aussie English Dick and Harry. And I absolutely refuse to spell aluminium wrong to overcome the fact that some people cannot pronounce it.

HOWEVER - and I took me about 5 years before I needed to stop second guessing. But I can now read 9/11 as September Eleven and not ninth of July as any self respecting non-American would read it. ;)
 

Rory

Senior Member.

Yup:

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/26/5031...ege-dragging-down-voter-turnout-in-your-state

Interesting that their figure for VEP (58.4%) is slightly different to the wikipedia one (59.2%). But the article was pretty soon after the election so I guess figures were fine-tuned as time went by.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter...tes_presidential_elections#Turnout_statistics

I can now read 9/11 as September Eleven and not ninth of July

July???
 

econ41

Senior Member
if im misunderstanding something, re: "logistics" bear with me. i'm not sure it's simply add numbers differently, you'd have to buy a lot more poll machines i think. Based on my experience, a lot of people don't vote now because they know which way their state will vote.
Sure - you are correct but I was focused on the fundamental difference. Not the details. There are additional consequences. Some of these go to issues of different approaches between countries and the unwelcome topic of which aspects may be "better". Use of voting machines versus counting marks on audited individual bits of paper is one. Optional versus compulsory voting is another.
 

econ41

Senior Member
dont mess with my head like this, in a thread about how "other countries" use words different! :)
I'm the one with the messed up head. Typing without putting my brain in gear.

Thanks Both. I was actually doubly confused" because I usually make a reference to British Pragmatism. Their "event" was on 7/7 and neatly bypasses the ambiguity of interpretation.
 

econ41

Senior Member
yea, f that!
It is a matter of personal preference as to political philosophy. The bottom line is whether you - as in "each of us as individuals" - personally, prefer a polarised two-party system or the flexibility of at least having some opportunities for minority parties to moderate the extremes arising from two-party polarisation....

The influence of minority parties has IMO been beneficial here in AU. Especially on environmental issues. We do have an "ultra-right" clique here. But it is constrained to being a minority party. Not operating internally within our "moderately right" and totally misnamed "liberal" party.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
It is a matter of personal preference as to political philosophy. The bottom line is whether you - as in "each of us as individuals" - personally, prefer a polarised two-party system or the flexibility of at least having some opportunities for minority parties to moderate the extremes arising from two-party polarisation....

The influence of minority parties has IMO been beneficial here in AU. Especially on environmental issues. We do have an "ultra-right" clique here. But it is constrained to being a minority party. Not operating internally within our "moderately right" and totally misnamed "liberal" party.

I'm only commenting to keep this off-topic of an off-topic, off topic aside going, since i find it funny i'm not allowed to talk about Russian bias and Intelligence officers in the Baltic thread but we can talk about literally anything in this thread.

Compulsory voting would cure our two party system?
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Econ can comment on this: but I think electing parliament nationally rather than locally - ie, proportional representation based on the popular vote - would see an end to wasted votes and cure  our two-party system.

Perhaps the enormous role money plays in the US would make it less likely to work there though.

Doesn't compulsory voting just mean everyone gets more votes but the percentages stay more or less the same? Or are the lazy/busy/apathetic/apolitical more likely to vote one way than another?
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Doesn't compulsory voting just mean everyone gets more votes but the percentages stay more or less the same? Or are the lazy/busy/apathetic/apolitical more likely to vote one way than another? ;)
i do think many will vote democrat or repub vs libertarian or green because they know their vote would be wasted. (although this is hypothetical, my hippy friends still vote green when that's an option)
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Doesn't compulsory voting just mean everyone gets more votes but the percentages stay more or less the same? Or are the lazy/busy/apathetic/apolitical more likely to vote one way than another?

From John Sides in the Washington Post, with plenty of references to studies and simulations:

Non-voters are - on average - only a bit more Democratic than voters, and a bit more supportive of liberal policies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...datory-to-vote-that-would-change-very-little/
Content from External Source
Also says it would affect the results of very few elections (maybe in 2000) and that in some years non-voters were more likely Republican.

("A bit" means "the observed differences are not always large — usually a single-digit number of percentage points, and quite often in the low single digits.")

I wonder if the writer has some bias against compulsory voting though, since his "a bit" also means "sometimes more than ten percentage points difference and usually above low single digits" - which I think reads quite differently - as well as the stress on how few elections it might have changed rather than how many.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Also says it would affect the results of very few elections (maybe 2000)
but that's with the electoral system.
I wouldnt bother voting in California for example if i was a dem (or a repub either though) as you know CA is going blue. same with NY. etc.

Young voters tend to vote less. Young voters tend to be a bit more democrat.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
in the US, it'd hopefully also mean no shenanigans with voter registration
we dont even have a national system to track pandemics. it'll be 120 years before they figure out how to build one to track voters with computers.
 

LilWabbit

Senior Member
@LilWabbit Two coments on your latest post. First on what is better for each of two separate features:

It is not an "error" by any standards other than it was a system adopted in accordance with the philosophy espoused by the drafters of the Constitution at that time. The contemporary expressed concerns arise because the system does not meet some contemporary preferences which lean towards "popular vote". And the biggest distortion does not come from the Electoral College system per se. Rather than the practice of "winner takes all".

Fully agree.

Yes it is interesting BUT take care as to how it is applied. The article seems to conflate two distinct situations.

Actually the article doesn't assume any position for or against direct democracy despite the misleading first sentence in the abstract.

The abstract tersely points out your "efficiency" argument for representative democracy when it discusses the "Deliberation Effect". The "epistemic gains" of the Deliberation Effect is what, if I remember correctly from my political philosophy classes, John Rawls described in different words as the "competency principle" of representative democracy, rendering it superior over direct democracy in a larger system. Namely, electing a fewer number of competent decision-makers whilst ensuring an effective government which is not over-indundated with people and thereby making "deliberation" and consultation practically impossible. Or as you said, the impracticality of direct democracy as a decision-making process in larger groups.

The Selection Effect, on the other hand (also mentioned in the abstract), refers to direct democracy (say, a popular vote) being less practical and less competent in day-to-day governance and decision-making (selecting policies) whereas it's better suited to selecting delegates and representatives within a constituency where the electorate has the benefit of familiarity.

In most systems of representative democracy, direct democracy (e.g. popular vote) still plays a role, whilst not necessarily a deciding role in the final outcome.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Actually the article doesn't assume any position for or against direct democracy despite the misleading first sentence in the abstract.
Yes. It is implied rather than explicit. And I was more interested in the actual application to two very different scenarios. The episodic one-off event of selecting a president contrasted with the ongoing processes of governance. The presidential election could be by direct count of votes. I'm not suggesting it would be desirable - that is a fundamental choice of philosophy for US people. Personally, I support the recognition that USA (like Australia) is a federation of states. And there is a lot of merit in having the selection made by the states which are the members of the federation - not the individual citizens. But I'm stating that neutrally. No preference either way. It is an issue for serious debate if and when there is any move to make changes.
The abstract tersely points out your "efficiency" argument for representative democracy when it discusses the "Deliberation Effect". The "epistemic gains" of the Deliberation Effect is what, if I remember correctly from my political philosophy classes, John Rawls described in different words as the "competency principle" of representative democracy, rendering it superior over direct democracy in a larger system.
I've never seriously studied philosophy or politics. One token half subject in my engineering course - mostly to get some foundations in logic. More recently, when I studied for my law degree, Rawles was one of the influential philosophers we discussed as background to legal jurisprudence. His views on egalitarian consensus processes resonated with me at the time. Still do but - confession - I needed to refresh my recollections.
Namely, electing a fewer number of competent decision-makers whilst ensuring an effective government which is not over-indundated with people and thereby making "deliberation" and consultation practically impossible. Or as you said, the impracticality of direct democracy as a decision-making process in larger groups.

The Selection Effect, on the other hand (also mentioned in the abstract), refers to direct democracy (say, a popular vote) being less practical and less competent in day-to-day governance and decision-making (selecting policies) whereas it's better suited to selecting delegates and representatives within a constituency where the electorate has the benefit of familiarity.
Yes. We are singing the same song.
In most systems of representative democracy, direct democracy (e.g. popular vote) still plays a role, whilst not necessarily a deciding role in the final outcome.
Yes.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
As well as the problems inherent in self-reported characteristics, they're also outdated ones, as Gabbard, for example has done a complete flip-flop.
no. she still spouts her lefty ideas.
As of today, she's no longer a Democrat; no surprise after she spoke at CPAC earlier this year.
Article:
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii announced Tuesday that she's leaving the Democratic Party because she said it's "now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness."
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
As of today, she's no longer a Democrat; no surprise after she spoke at CPAC earlier this year.
Article:
Former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii announced Tuesday that she's leaving the Democratic Party because she said it's "now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness."
she still spouts the same lefty ideas she has always had. she was always wicked anti-war, she was always spiritual, she has always felt ALL americans count, she has always been anti-divisiveness etc.

Article:
In a video statement posted on social media, Gabbard, 41, accused Democrats of dividing the country "by racializing every issue, stoking anti-white racism" and "actively working to undermine our God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution."

"The Democrats of today are hostile to people of faith and spirituality," she continued. "They demonize the police and protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans. The Democrats of today believe in open borders and weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents. Above all else, the Democrats of today are dragging us ever closer to nuclear war."



she's smart. she wants votes from both sides of the aisle. and i bet she get them.
Not sure what took her so long to go Independent, after Hillary and the media called her a Russian asset... but i guess now she is. It's not like the Dems are gonna let her win on their ticket anyway.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Straight from the horse's mouth:

"I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our constitution, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me in leaving the Democratic Party. If you can no longer stomach the direction that the so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me."

twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859
Content from External Source
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there some kind of bingo game where the card is full of words like "elitist, cabal, warmongers, cowardly, woke, freedom, God, constitution, faith, law-abiding Americans, weaponize, of by and for the people, powerful elite, and ideologues"?

That's a full house right there!

Can't believe she missed "patriot" and "proud" though.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Straight from the horse's mouth:

"I can no longer remain in today’s Democratic Party that is now under the complete control of an elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness, who divide us by racializing every issue & stoke anti-white racism, actively work to undermine our God-given freedoms that are enshrined in our constitution, are hostile to people of faith & spirituality, demonize the police & protect criminals at the expense of law-abiding Americans, believe in open borders, weaponize the national security state to go after political opponents, and above all, dragging us ever closer to nuclear war.

I believe in a government that is of, by, and for the people. Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party does not. Instead, it stands for a government of, by, and for the powerful elite. I’m calling on my fellow common sense independent-minded Democrats to join me in leaving the Democratic Party. If you can no longer stomach the direction that the so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me."

twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1579788950696185859
Content from External Source
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there some kind of bingo game where the card is full of words like "elitist, cabal, warmongers, cowardly, woke, freedom, God, constitution, faith, law-abiding Americans, weaponize, of by and for the people, powerful elite, and ideologues"?

That's a full house right there!

Can't believe she missed "patriot" and "proud" though.
I had the exact same thought,
and if she'd said "grooming" & "pedophiles" I'd have had bingo!
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
and if she'd said "grooming" & "pedophiles" I'd have had bingo!
her full podcast is on apple podcasts. The tulsi Gabbard Show. she didnt use those words but she did point out the sexualizing of young children in our schools. i think that counts as "grooming".

She basically sounds like Bill Mahr, whatever he is.
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
she still spouts the same lefty ideas she has always had. She was always wicked anti-war, she was always spiritual, she has always felt ALL americans count, she has always been anti-divisiveness etc.
Oh. So those are "lefty" ideas? I don't usually see conservatives admit that so blatantly, but thanks for letting me know that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Oh. So those are "lefty" ideas? I don't usually see conservatives admit that so blatantly, but thanks for letting me know that.

nice twist, but no cigar.

listen to her old debates and new podcasts and if you see any flip flopping (which was your claim Mendel quoted) you can let me know.
As well as the problems inherent in self-reported characteristics, they're also outdated ones, as Gabbard, for example has done a complete flip-flop.


add: too many issues included to really quote any: here is a wikipage of all of Tulsi's lefty positions, ill quote 1 just for link policy
Article:
Gabbard supports making community college tuition free for all Americans while making all four-year colleges tuition free for students with an annual family income of $125,000 or less. The tuition would be funded by a new tax on trading stocks and bonds.[125]
 
Last edited:

NoParty

Senior Member.
As of today, she's no longer a Democrat; no surprise after she spoke at CPAC earlier this year.
Yeah, I think I initially found her refreshing. A young Dem with a medical/army background.
But then she starts talking...and you just go: "Oh no...oh my, god!!"

While I think H. Clinton may've slightly overstated Russia's apparent desire to use Gabbard
(who seemed to welcome it) to help keep a Republican in office, who would continue the
Trump bootlicking praise of Putin, Gabbard's $50 million sham lawsuit against her was the
final straw for me. Of course, after she got a million headlines for it, she quietly abandoned it.

I'm guessing that Gabbard's lawyers made clear that--right out of the gate--it wasn't going
to go well, since Clinton hadn't used Gabbard's name when talking about Russians using
a Democrat, and Gabbard essentially yelling: "That's gotta be me!!!" :p
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
More on Tulsi Gabbard:

When conservative congresswoman from Hawaii and 2020 presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard announced on Tuesday that she’s leaving the Democratic Party, gay Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D) said what everyone was thinking in a six-word tweet.

“Wait, Tulsi Gabbard was a Democrat?” Kenyatta wrote.
In a video announcement, Gabbard – who has a history of anti-LGBTQ actions and rhetoric – said she could no longer remain in the Democratic Party, citing perennial rightwing complaints like “wokeness” and “anti-white racism” as well as more recent conservative issues like the FBI investigating the Trump administration for its alleged crimes.
Content from External Source
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...A12QsZR?cvid=9fdca34944774741b58d09e516b6790c
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I wonder, for example, if Deirdre and our other US contributors are aware of the fact that 5 of the UK's last 7 prime ministers resigned/were ousted from their jobs and were therefore replaced as the country's leader by someone voters hadn't actually elected?

Make that 6 out of the last 8 - Liz Truss (third ever female prime minister) has resigned under pressure after just 45 days in charge (shortest ever).
 

Ann K

Senior Member.
Make that 6 out of the last 8 - Liz Truss (third ever female prime minister) has resigned under pressure after just 45 days in charge (shortest ever).
Her tenure was compared to the shelf life of a lettuce, which prompted this.
CFD8A1FE-9887-47E9-8448-D090027D14E2.jpeg

Today's announcement was greeted by a tweet:
707E92ED-6D9C-45F3-8D7E-5839DF6754CC.jpeg
Her tenure, though short, was still what was recognized in the USA as "Four and a half Scaramuccis"
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Her tenure was compared to the shelf life of a lettuce, which prompted this.

Prime Minister Liz Truss has finally resigned in a glorious victory for the Daily Star's lettuce.

You can watch the Daily Star's lettuce claim its victory below:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-RE95lKJ0

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/breaking-daily-star-lettuce-celebrates-28282527
Content from External Source
Lettuce for prime minister?

The Daily Star's Lettuce is now 1000/1 to be one of your five (Prime Ministers) a day.

Alex Apati of Ladbrokes said: "She came, she saw, she conquered, and with 30 days of life left in her, she's 1000/1 to replace Liz Truss as PM."

Labour's Chris Bryant said: "We don't have a government, the lettuce might as well be running the country."
Content from External Source
The lettuce is currently listening to dub and enjoying its victory:

Screen Shot 2022-10-20 at 09.09.21.png
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
This is not the humor thread. Or the British politics thread. If you all are not going to stay on topic then it's time to close the thread
 

Rory

Senior Member.
It's been a political thread (or whatever anyone wants to say thread) since about page 5/6.

It was suggested a while back that it should be split at post #169 and moved into a more appropriate section.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top