Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (19013)	8/23/2005 3:37:09 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

"Iraqi oil will pay for our war" was another popular one. "That was utterly ridiculous the first time it was said. Were they that stupid or was it just a necessary lie? " First time I heard it was on C-SPAN airing something from, guess what..., AEI, with Perle and the whole shabang.. Today was another similar day, C-SPAN had another funny (utterly ridiculous) AEI talking head as a Wahington Journal guest. "Reuel Marc Gerecht, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, discusses the Iraqi constitution. 8/23/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 45 min. " Internet-archived for 15 days: c-span.org Note, according to Wikipedia (if I remember right) it was also AEI who came up with the idea of a "federal Iraq".. Same thing, IMNHO, as the roman "dividere et empere(?)" as well as the british basic colonialism system, which did not work for USA. That is, now as the "Iraqi oil pays for everything" is dead, there is still the hope of divided, easy to handle Iraq... If that works, iraqi oil might still pay for everything?

To: jttmab who wrote (19013)	8/23/2005 3:47:45 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 20773

"getting rid of the electoral college" Proportional representation, multi-party systems should usually start from the "local level", states, counties, etc.. The President, IMO, must be elected through something else but a PR-multi-party system as there can be only one president, although term-limited. (although US too originally thought of the possibility to have a president from one party and a vice-president from the other, kind of co-habitation, as it is called in France, but president vs prime minister). The US Senate must, IMO, be the "check and balance" on the president and the house, slighty longer terms, changing more slowly, etc, a more "conservative" insitution (in the real conservative sense). Additionally those extra 2 presidential votes per state is one of the smartest, and only??, minority protection mechanisms USA has. (ref filibusters, more than 50% majorities,etc). The US-tradegy(dilemma) is that, this time in history, no checks and balances are functional (not even the Supreme Court using the constitution). That is, it seems "the change" has to start from the states and the really local elections, governors, mayors,etc??? PS presidential-elections: most modern states use a ?? whatever-it-is-called, run-up system??. That is, - in the first round, lots of candidates. - if nobody gets 50% of the (popular) votes, the two with the most go to the final. This ensures a more than 50% majority support for the president, gets rid of the funniest candidates although they are allowed to be in the race, speak their mind,etc.. However, in a "true 2-party-system" like USA, this would not really work, campaign finance, access to ballots,etc.. That is, one description for the US system has been "catch-22" (while UK is almost there and Canada might get going soon, ref British Columbia)