• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Governator?

I'd truly like to see "None of the above" as a legit option on all ballot papers, with all listed candidates banned from even standing for a PTA board if the NOTA percentage exceeds a minimum value.
The Schneibsteress likes this one, too, but only bans candidates from standing for that office again that cycle; this basically eliminates them from politics until the next election at minimum, but is not permanent.

I'm 52. I have never , once, voted for an MP (or MSP) who got elected. This representational democracy stuff only works if you vote for the winners.
I'm lucky, I guess; I've voted for lots of people who got elected to various offices at the local, state, and federal level. We also have a thing over here (in some states- this also varies by state) called a "proposition." We get to vote (and it's binding) on changes to the laws, directly. There isn't (at least in California, unless things changed while I was out of state) any veto on it, either- the only check is, it can't violate the state constitution, or the US Constitution. That gets judged by a court of appropriate jurisdiction if brought before it. I've voted on the winning side of some of those, too- but some of them I've been on the losing side of have been pretty nasty one way and another.
 
My nonelective (if the word applies) record stems from my habit of doing what you propose to do with Arnold; studying the candidate rather than the party. I have voted , at different times , for every major party except Labour.
The problem is that I live in an area where the vast majority of those who bother to vote do so along party lines, which invariably means Labour. The Scottish Nationalists (SNP) occasionally make progress, but it tends to be reversed at the next election by extra effort from the Labour Party in those areas which have been "disloyal".

To me, the result of voting along party lines is inevitable selection of a two party state in which the two parties grow more alike. I'd like to see more independent candidates, with total public transparency of their finances and likely interests.

I'd also like $1 a gallon gas and free Ben & Jerry's.
 
Interesting. I hadn't caught that. You guys have more parties than we do, too.
Swings ... roundabouts.

We have more parties, but our elected representatives are much more obliged to toe the party line.

I was reading something or other on Wikipedia not long ago, got onto British political parties for some reason and followed some links around; seems Conservatives are conservatives ...
No. If any US politician stood up and argued for the policies that the UK Conservative Party supports, your hate-radio people would denounce him as a Communist.

... and Labour used to be liberal, but has moved toward the center.

No, they used to be socialists. They are now much more middle-of-the-road, i.e. they are far to the left of anything that Americans would describe as "liberal", i.e. they are rational pragmatic moderates.

The Conservatives are "liberal", in American terms.

In your country, Tony Blair wouldn't have won an election if he was running for dogcatcher.

If your head is now spinning, it ought to be. Heaven knows I'm pro-American, but really ...

The executive holds the power of the veto. Overrides in general take a supermajority (it varies by state). If you think about this a moment you'll see it means that it is possible for a Governor to block all actions of a state legislature dominated by the opposing party, if there is not a supermajority of that party in that legislature (or if some don't toe the party line, and if my understanding is correct, that happens much more here than there).
I think I got it already, stop me if I'm wrong. The Governor is to the state what the President is to the country. Am I right?
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily. And I've found something out that would be an eliminator unless the other candidate had the same problem: this crap about gay marriage has to stop. It's OVER; people get to be openly gay if they so choose. Welcome to the twentieth century in the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave. Please let us know when you're ready to join us in the twenty-first. (If this by some chance does not correctly describe your views on the subject, please feel free to mark it down as directed at Arnie).

That was directed at me, not Arnie. You really make assumptions about my beliefs. I really don’t care if gay people get married, go ahead. I don’t see the point of making it illegal. I have no problem with gays getting married. On the downside, now they can discover the joys of divorce court. By the way where did I mention gay marriage?

That may well be the most naive thing I've heard anyone say today. Have you ever read The Prince?

The Prince? Yeah not a fan of Machiavelli. Machiavelli likes rule by force rather than by law, and protecting the “State”. Not a big fan of that.

Heh, you're kidding, right? You just said the ONLY thing to consider is which is the best candidate. When you suddenly realize that there is a lot more going on than you thought there was, console yourself with the following quote:


Yes, I was kidding and I’m familiar with Mark Twain.


When I vote I look at all the postions a candidate takes, not just one. Then I vote for who I consider the best person for the job, not the political party, I don’t think I’ve ever voted the party line straight across. I’ve vote for people from both parties every time. I’m surprised that you just toe the party line.
 
That was directed at me, not Arnie. You really make assumptions about my beliefs. I really don’t care if gay people get married, go ahead. I don’t see the point of making it illegal. I have no problem with gays getting married. On the downside, now they can discover the joys of divorce court. By the way where did I mention gay marriage?
You didn't, but the degree of naivete required to make the reply you did, coupled with your general style, kind of indicated a rather rightward bent, and the fact that you support the current administration has a tendency to sort of tar you with the same authoritarian brush. Sorry if that was insulting. As far as whether it was directed at Arnie or not, you might want to read Lisa's post, IIRC the second in this thread.

The Prince? Yeah not a fan of Machiavelli. Machiavelli likes rule by force rather than by law, and protecting the “State”. Not a big fan of that.
I didn't ask whether you were a fan. I asked if you had read it. I'm surprised you would say what you did if you have.

Yes, I was kidding and I’m familiar with Mark Twain.
No, you weren't kidding. You were being insulting and you got caught saying something stupid. It's OK, I say stupid stuff sometimes too.

When I vote I look at all the postions a candidate takes, not just one. Then I vote for who I consider the best person for the job, not the political party, I don’t think I’ve ever voted the party line straight across. I’ve vote for people from both parties every time. I’m surprised that you just toe the party line.
Oh, I look. It's just pretty hard to get past all that money disappearing. It hasn't gotten any better with this administration, I can tell you that.
 
Swings ... roundabouts.

We have more parties, but our elected representatives are much more obliged to toe the party line.
That was the impression I had.

No. If any US politician stood up and argued for the policies that the UK Conservative Party supports, your hate-radio people would denounce him as a Communist.
Yeah, like I said, unless I edited it out, some kind of odd beliefs for conservatives compared to some of the jackbooted thugs we get over here.

No, they used to be socialists. They are now much more middle-of-the-road, i.e. they are far to the left of anything that Americans would describe as "liberal", i.e. they are rational pragmatic moderates.

The Conservatives are "liberal", in American terms.
Well, I dunno if I'm as far left as your Labour party, but I generally score in the high negatives (-6,-6 or so) on both axes of the Political Compass. I'm pretty far left economically, and pretty libertarian (and I don't mean Libertarian, they're anarcho-capitalists, I tend very far left from them, and more libertarian). The Democratic party in the US is well right of center, and the Republican a fair bit farther; both of them are pretty authoritarian.

My old man is a frank socialist; socialize the banks, the food mills, insurance, telecommunications, medicine, and energy. Too authoritarian for me. I suppose I'm an anarcho-syndicalist if you have to put a name on it, but I don't expect anyone over here is going to accept that little authority anytime soon; makes them feel insecure. The only ones who espouse anything like it haven't figured out that money is power yet, or if they have, it's their security blanket so they don't have to face up to what it means to actually not care what other people do if it doesn't affect you. US citizens are meddlesome. Always sticking their noses in other peoples' business.

In your country, Tony Blair wouldn't have won an election if he was running for dogcatcher.
I'm sure.

If your head is now spinning, it ought to be. Heaven knows I'm pro-American, but really ...
No, I've talked with Brits before. I know the score, some. I just take everything about 5 or 6 points left, and equate from there, and don't look at the actual exact positions on social issues too closely; it gets me pretty close to the feel of it. If I need to know more, I ask; you folks have some odd (from the viewpoint of the system over here, not my personal one) ideas about things, and because we speak the same language it can be very deceptive. There's an annoying tendency to assume you know what someone is saying, which is not always the case.

I think I got it already, stop me if I'm wrong. The Governor is to the state what the President is to the country. Am I right?
Pretty much; it varies from state to state to a certain extent, but most if not all states duplicate the general idea of three branches, executive, legislative, judicial, and have checks and balances between them. How the legislature is set up varies greatly, and whether state judges and sometimes law enforcement are elected or appointed varies, and even whether they technically report to the judicial or executive; some states have income tax, some don't, some have sales tax, some don't, and each one has its own constitution-thing (they're not all called a constitution) and its own set of laws. Some states have land that's owned by the federal government, mostly out West, and on that land, the only law is usually the US Code; state law generally doesn't apply there. But that too varies; each one is a special case, though many of them have identical laws. All of the laws in all of the states, and all of their constitution-things all have to conform to the US Constitution, but a state can make a law that contravenes the US Code and the federal government can run into trouble enforcing it because they don't have the manpower to do so without the cooperation of the authorities in the state. They can get all high-handed about it, and sometimes they do- marijuana laws are that way recently- but there's no mechanism to make state law conform to the US Code.

It's complicated. :D
 
Last edited:
Just in case you missed it, The Governator is #8 of the top liberals. That's right, liberals. He just behind Michael Moore
8. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER
Governor of California


Leaving him off the conservative list was a difficult decision but Schwarzenegger’s defiance of Republican orthodoxy and move towards California liberalism leaves him better placed to influence the liberal sphere. Even unstinting Schwarzenegger support of a Rudy Giuliani general election campaign in California would be unlikely to deliver the state to Republicans. His marriage to Maria Shriver took him into the Kennedy clan.

As an Austrian-born immigrant, the former body builder and action movie star is barred from the presidency, though he has not ruled out a run for the US Senate in 2010 if Barbara Boxer retires. Schwarzenegger’s actions to combat global warming have prompted an alliance with Tony Blair and are likely lead to his working more closely with Al Gore. For any Democrat entering the Oval Office, one of the first calls will be to Schwarzenegger.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...xclusions/uselection/nosplit/liberals1-20.xml


Some people have said he's too right wing. WOW, how liberal does that make them? Over the top liberal?
 
No you’re not. I’ve read most of your posts. I don’t believe you’re a commie, you are an independent thinker. That’s good; you even go against your text books. NICE. My post was tongue in cheek. Don’t go for labels. Laugh at them.
 
I guess I'd take him over the others, but for such a tough guy he sure is a pussy who lets the democrats in the state cockslap him around.
 
The Painter,

Liberal has a somewhat different meaning in Britain.

Wikipedia has a good discussion about the various strands of liberalism. In short, British liberals have tended to be more in the centre than American liberals with more emphasis on personal liberty and less on the redistribution of wealth.
 
I did vote for him, but now I wish I hadn't. He has turned into quite the socialist lately. At first he appeared to be getting the state out of debt, but he did most of this by borrowing heavily on future revenues. Now, he has spent so much money like a drunk sailor for everything from stem cell research to global warming that we may never see any color of ink other than red.


Then again, if he spent all that money on something worthless instead, he'd sound just like a republican.
 

Back
Top Bottom