www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:it was to raise taxes to begin elimination of the national debt.

This was the center of his problem. A country already in debt isn't going to want to pay more taxes.

Deepcrush wrote:

Mikey wrote:it was to raise taxes to begin elimination of the national debt.

This was the center of his problem. A country already in debt isn't going to want to pay more taxes.

Obviously. The point is that Fritz spoke to what was, in his opinion, needed rather than wanted. He got pilloried for it.

Sometimes the system works.

Deepcrush wrote:Sometimes the system works.

Sometimes. This wasn't one of those times. This was, rather, an example of democracy being served even if the public mandate was one of "I don't want to sacrifice to fix the problem" instead of "Let's fix this."

Taxes aren't the problem though so its not fixing anything. Its just an idea to take more money to throw at the problem. The problem is that civilians don't truly want to fix their problems, they just look for someone else to push the problems onto. Its not about if those people are from a democracy or elsewhere. Its just that in democracies, civilians have greater amount of say.

I didn't say that democracy was a problem - I said that in a democracy, the people get to have their say, even when that say seems poorly-motivated. As you yourself mentioned,

Deepcrush wrote:The problem is that civilians don't truly want to fix their problems, they just look for someone else to push the problems onto.

My entire point was an illustration of this fact, and the fact that everyone wants problems to be solved - but only if they don't have to sacrifice for it. It's just another example of the "not in my backyard" mentality.

It's our own damn fault for letting them get away with it. I'd pay good money to see a real debate between candidates for President and VP of each party. Instead we get hour and a half stump speeches broken up into two minute long segments.

Honestly I think something we need to consider is a "None of the Above" choice in elections.

If that polls over 33% in the election neither person running can run for election again. Ever.

The bad part about that is that the US Presidential election process already drags out over, what, two years? And now you'd have an option where they finally get to the end of it and the result of "Sorry, do it all again."

Plus, who exactly becomes the President for that duration? It doesn't exactly make a lot of sense for the sitting President to stay in power for another year or two after such a result.

I still think grabbing average Joe off of the street would do just as much damage or good to the country as the 'professionals'.

I've often said that the surest way to tell that someone is unqualified for public office is by the fact that they aspire to public office.

Mikey wrote:I've often said that the surest way to tell that someone is unqualified for public office is by the fact that they aspire to public office.

Likely the best example I've heard in a long time. Bonus points for you!

GrahamKennedy wrote:The bad part about that is that the US Presidential election process already drags out over, what, two years? And now you'd have an option where they finally get to the end of it and the result of "Sorry, do it all again."

Plus, who exactly becomes the President for that duration? It doesn't exactly make a lot of sense for the sitting President to stay in power for another year or two after such a result.

One could quite simply exclude that general election from the process and only allow it in primary elections. That would leave plenty of time for redo's as necessary.

It would still drag an already prolonged election process out even longer, with all the attendant problems. If you are going to rerun primaries, where does the time for that come from? You either delay the main election, or move the primaries back. In the former case you give the party in power a strong reason to keep voting none of the above, because they can stall the process indefinitely and thus keep their guy in power. If you move the primaries back, you're extending an already incredibly long election process even more, with all the damage that does the the presidency and country.

And what if the people vote "none of the above" four or five times in a row? Ten times in a row? What then?