It's all about "sex"

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.
Locked
User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

The counter-argument to that is that we already "have" term limits by virtue of the ballot box; you don't like the old one, vote 'em out of office.
Take note everyone, Carl and I 100% agree on this statement.

Let me point out that the Articles of Confederation, that immediately preceded the Constitution, had term limits and the Constitution, in its original form, did not. Not on any office including the Presidency, which they were particularly wary of because they had just fought a very bloody revolution against a monachy. I take that as clear proof the Founding Fathers had found it was a really bad idea.

Think about it, if you had to have brain surgery, who would you prefer doing the operation: A kid still going through med school or an experienced, well-respected brain surgeon? Not much question. All other things being equal, experience counts in any profession.
I challenge you on the former to engage your brain and your eyes and think for yourself rather than parroting party line.


This is an insult that I would normally say is not worthy of a reply. But it is too infamous an accusation to let stand. Anyone who has read my posts has seen plenty of original, creative thinking on my part. Just because I come to different conclusions than you do, doesn't mean I haven't put thought into my positions.

Just who do you think you are to think your conclusions are so unassailable that no intelligent, thoughtful person could come to any other conclusion than you have? I find such arrogance absolutely appalling. It is certainly uncalled for and insufferable. I can't imagine what gave you the notion you have any right or reason to be so utterly dismissive of people who disagree with you.

You're an intelligent person who knows a lot of things, but your reasoning isn't infallible any more than anyone else's is. If you can't respect people who disagree with you, you have no business being the moderator of ANY forum.
You follow enough inferences and we can pin the Kennedy assassination of some Millennial who hadn't even been born in 1963!


I was trying to make the point that conspiracy theorists have shown how little connection to reality it takes to weave a few facts, a little supposition and some inferences into "proof" that, for instance, the Apollo missions were one of the greatest hoaxes on record.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Sinned »

I understand where you are coming from with this. We have the same problem. I would also favour term limits for our MP's - two terms is enough and would stop any career politicians. Slim down the House of Lords, have a fixed number to match the number of MP's and only limit attendance to life peers. Stop the automatic creation of life peers because of service or if they are created they don't automatically get to sit in the HoLs. I'm not sure that gaining experience is a valid counter-argument. It seems to me that most politicians are promoted to their level of incompetence. There is a difference with the brain surgeon - he/she goes through many years of training and course work. No such qualification is required to become a politician - aside from having your brain removed before taking office. Your current president is a cute (?) example of this.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.

User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: It's all about "term limits"

Post by Jim »

To me the issue of term limits is a complicated one. There are many politicians that I think should be term-limited out of office, and some that shouldn't. Experience is valuable at times, and so is having new people in office. A better solution might be to try to eliminate many of the advantages of the incumbent, with such things as public financing of elections, and restricting the many ways politicians become corrupt. Another possibility is to allow a party to exempt 25% (or so) of its officeholders from term limits, so there are some with experience but a constant turnover. Other ideas?

User avatar
Uncle Al
Moderator
Posts: 2659
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 10:07 pm
Location: Duncanville, TX USA

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Uncle Al »

The concept of "Vote them out of office" is not - IMO - Term Limits.
The 'existing' elephants in Congress, The House and The Senate have been
there waaaaaay to long. A DEFINED TERM LIMIT would make them leave
government and go back to 'civilian' life. Even as POTUS, he has a maximum
of 2 consecutive terms. If the person wants to run again, he/she may do
so AFTER being out of office for a minimum of 1 term.

That's the proper definition of TERM LIMITS. You're in office for 'X' number
of years, then you're OUT :!: Period :!: End of Discussion :!:

DEFINED TERM LIMITS would guarantee fresh new blood in public office.
They wouldn't be there long enough to become billionaires at the expense
of the taxpayer.

That's my $.02 worth and I'm sticking too it :!: ;)

Uncle Al
:mrgreen: :ugeek: :mrgreen:
Kilted Organist/Musician
Grand Musician of the Grand Lodge, I.O.O.F. of Texas 2008-2009, 2015-2016,
2018-2020(and the beat goes on ;) )
When asked 'Why the Kilt?'
I respond-The why is F.T.H.O.I. (For The H--- Of It)

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11389
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by crfriend »

Uncle Al wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:30 pm
If the person wants to run again, he/she may do
so AFTER being out of office for a minimum of 1 term.

That's the proper definition of TERM LIMITS. You're in office for 'X' number
of years, then you're OUT :!: Period :!: End of Discussion :!:
The problem with that is that you wind up with the rather kinky situation that Russia enjoys where every so often Putin and his 2nd in charge swap places for a term and then back again.

I could imagine this becoming a problem here. Contemplate a swapping of Obama/Biden presidencies or Cheney/Dubya going on until one of them dropped dead or retired...
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11389
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by crfriend »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:
Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:43 am
This is an insult that I would normally say is not worthy of a reply. But it is too infamous an accusation to let stand. Anyone who has read my posts has seen plenty of original, creative thinking on my part. Just because I come to different conclusions than you do, doesn't mean I haven't put thought into my positions.
I did not intend insult, but what was being written looked very much like party line and so got called out.

How about this? I've played with my model of what's going on inside the "black box" of Washington, DC and came up with something that may actually encompass both of our ideas. I candidly admit that my model is a complete "black-box" analysis in which the inner workings of the thing are entirely opaque and one can only observe the "inputs" and the "outputs" to infer what's going on inside. The "add" added complexity that I don't like (being an engineer), but adds nuance.

So, let's take the commonly accepted notion that corruption is rampant in modern US politics. Let's also take the accepted view that there are two "parties" (which defies the black-box analysis). What happens if a supermajority (enough to override a presidential veto) are thoroughly corrupted? Further, what happens if they are corrupted by the same set of players? The input/output behaviour of the thing holds, and there is also "plausible deniability" by all involved. This would also explain the presence of sideline players like Warren and Sanders who would otherwise be completely lacking.

It's worth bearing in mind that campaign "contributions" are not "contributions" in the least but rather a "fee for service", and the candidates know that. Somebody can ignore the random twenty tossed in their direction, but 20,000 (or 200,000, much less 2,000,000) is another matter altogether. That's just down to human nature.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Bravo to you Carl! You have shown in this discourse the grace, forbearance and openmindedness on this topic that you demonstrate as our lead moderator.

I want to make it abundantly clear that I mean that first sentence sincerely. This afternoon as I thought about my previous post in this thread I realized that it could be taken as a criticism of Carl's work as a Moderator. That wasn't my intent at all. As I thought about the amount he and I have disagreed and the few times he spiked one of my submissions I came to the only justified conclusion which is that he never let our disagreements cause him to censor anything. At least that I could see. In retrospect, I feel the times he removed a post of mine were justified and therefore for the long-term good of the forum.

Now as to your model, by your own admission it's oversimplified. There is no question that the amount of money sloshing around for political campaigns is obscene and corrupting. Not only that, but the best lobbyists in Washington, DC not only direct their clients' money to the target politicians' campaign chests, but also their pet charities! It's rare that those contributions buy direct quids pro quo, but it does buy access, which amounts to most legislators only hearing one side of any given issue.

Furthermore, anymore, what really counts are the regulations financial meltdown. The original bill was strong, comprehensive and stood a good chance of actually preventing the big banks from sinking the economy again. By the time it got signed into law, his tiger had lost a bunch of fangs and claws, but still had a fair amount of fight left in it. It's an open question if the big banks and the Bankers' Association completed the defanging and declawing process, but not to worry I just found out that the former US Rep. Barney Frank is pimping himself out to banks to help them navigate through whatever shoals remain from his eponymous act!

Before you feel I've effectively run up the white flag, consider this:
  • Progressives seem to be doing pretty well in the Congressional primaries against the picks of the National Democratic Party
  • Judging by the Democratic Party's Presidential Primary debates this year's Democratic platform will look a lot more like Bernie's than Hillary's
  • And if the Republicans try to run against Obamacare again, they'll just nail some of the last nails into their political coffins.


Your black box model would suggest that elections don't matter; that they're nothing but a "Heads, the 1% wins, tails the people lose!" sham. I firmly do not believe that.

I firmly believe that politics is, always has been, and always will be a choice of the lesser of two evils because we're always voting for people, with all of their foibles, temptations and shortcomings. Equally frustrating, our current system, with all of the barnacles and other odious growth it has accumulated in the 2+ centuries since we started full self-governance, is almost incapable of action, let alone drastic action. But that shortcoming is more and more evident, even to the people sitting in the Capital building. Finally, radical change rarely occurs in history and never easily or even that quickly. Consider, it was about 20 years between the Shot Heard Round the World and the adoption of our Constitution!

So, I take your point -- in fact, I always have -- Carl, that when considering any public policy, we have to watch the big money. But in our system, the people and history always have the last word.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Sinned »

Do you have the concept of limiting the "contribution" an induhvidual [0] or organisation can make? If there was a maximum, and it would have to be fairly low like say 100,00, then it would limit the amount parties can spend on campaigns and hopefully stop "the one that spends the most wins". You could also have a limit on the total amount that a party can spend in a campaign, like say 10,000,000. I think that we have some limits over here but am not well informed enough to be sure. I'm sure that the amounts spent on campaigns in the run up to an election could be obscene. Maybe I'm showing my naivety here.

[0] Scott Adam's Dilbert.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11389
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by crfriend »

Sinned wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 3:56 pm
Do you have the concept of limiting the "contribution" an induhvidual or organisation can make?
Unfortunately no longer. We did several years ago, and it tended to keep things a lot cleaner than they are now; however the "Citizens United" [0] decision by the Supreme Court removed all of those sorts of restrictions by declaring corporations as "individuals" and restrictions on how much money they can dump into the system got classified as "free speech".

As one wag who is vastly better than I am remarked, "I'll believe corporations are individuals when Texas executes one." [1]


[0] A deceivingly and idiotically named decision because the citizenry was generally dead-set against it.
[1] A good case could have been made for executing AIG following the economic collapse of 2007, and Wells Fargo when it was discovered to be playing fast and loose with the rules by subscribing its clients to expensive "services" that they did not consent to.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11389
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by crfriend »

Pdxfashionpioneer wrote:
Fri Jun 26, 2020 10:46 am
Bravo to you Carl! You have shown in this discourse the grace, forbearance and openmindedness on this topic that you demonstrate as our lead moderator.
Grazie Signore! I can be an opinionated little swine from time to time, but I strive very diligently not to be when operating in an official capacity.

It's worth noting that the overwhelming bulk of my writings hereon are from a personal and not an official perspective -- and I try to draw distinctions, usually using colour-coding, when I am operating with the "force and majesty" of my position. As I have written before from a personal perspective, I do not enjoy the exercise of raw power; diplomacy and persuasion are better tools for most things. This philosophy applies when I am in "official mode" as well, and my general style is to let things stand and make examples out of them rather than to censor them. Also, I am especially sensitive to incidences where I am attacked personally so it doesn't look like I have an overly "thin skin" (I don't).
I feel the times he removed a post of mine were justified and therefore for the long-term good of the forum.
I do not recall spiking a single post of yours, and I looked at the logs to see if that's correct and, from what I can see it is. We may disagree at times, and I regard that as not just fine but healthy -- and my hope is that we can be adults -- all of us -- and be able to deploy the willingness to "agree to disagree" on some things. This is one of the bases of civilisation as we know it.
Now as to your model, by your own admission it's oversimplified.
Recall its genesis -- a black-box model of "something" that's entirely opaque, but that one can observe how it behaves when presented with certain stimuli over time. It was that model, and the observations and correlation of output to input that resulted in the call of "oligarchy" (for the simple reason that no other known system fit).

There is still precious little transparency as to what goes on in DC -- or, more pointedly, in the individual party politics -- so anything I "add" onto the observable data is, to me, mere speculation. But that slight "add" closed an important gap -- and proved once again my hypothesis, that for all that divides us a human beings there is even more that unites us, so long as we can find it.
Furthermore, anymore, what really counts are the regulations financial meltdown. The original bill was strong, comprehensive and stood a good chance of actually preventing the big banks from sinking the economy again.
I'm guessing you're writing of Dodd-Frank in that. It was a valiant effort, but too little too late -- as in many ways Glass-Stegall was an attempt to apply a Band-Aid to the shotgun-wound inflicted in 1929. Glass-Stegall finally fell during Bill Clinton's regime as he was trying hard to get the oligarchs off his back during the impeachment proceedings. I do not believe that anything remains in force of Dodd-Frank save for the most milquetoast of bits. The real teeth are long gone. Take, for instance, the fact that "mortgage-backed 'securities'" are once again being actively marketed as "investment grade" vehicles.
Before you feel I've effectively run up the white flag, consider this:
If that ever happened I'd be truly flabbergasted!
  • Progressives seem to be doing pretty well in the Congressional primaries against the picks of the National Democratic Party
  • Judging by the Democratic Party's Presidential Primary debates this year's Democratic platform will look a lot more like Bernie's than Hillary's
  • And if the Republicans try to run against Obamacare again, they'll just nail some of the last nails into their political coffins.
Well, let's see what emerges from the convention first. Going in last time it looked reasonable and then the final product was unacceptable.
Your black box model would suggest that elections don't matter; that they're nothing but a "Heads, the 1% wins, tails the people lose!" sham. I firmly do not believe that.
Belief is all well and good, but where's the observable proof that it actually make a whit of difference for the vast majority of the population of the USA? I'm not slagging off on your belief, but ultimately beliefs need to be grounded in some sort of reality else they become religion.
[... W]hen considering any public policy, we have to watch the big money. But in our system, the people and history always have the last word.
Sadly, as in all other histories, the victor gets to write it. I worry that the vast, diverse, spectacular voice of the general population will never be heard here.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

At one point we wondered why US students ate taught Manhattan Island was bought for $26 when every Dutch school child knows Nieuwe Amsterdam was purchased for 60 Guilders. Exchange rate.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.

User avatar
Pdxfashionpioneer
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1294
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:39 am
Location: Portland, OR, USA

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Pdxfashionpioneer »

Sorry Carl, your Oligarchical black box seems to covers
a lot of policy making, but nowhere near all. In every election several upstarts in both parties beat the incumbent or party favorite.

Similarly, plenty of electoral victors were outspent by their unsuccessful opponents. As the old saying goes, “Money isn’t everything. Even in politics.

This is one of those rare occasions when the exceptions in the data are more important than the bulk.
David, the PDX Fashion Pioneer

Social norms aren't changed by Congress or Parliament; they're changed by a sufficient number of people ignoring the existing ones and publicly practicing new ones.

User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by oldsalt1 »

Sinned wrote:
Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:48 am
Yeah, that got it. A good report and I had heard that he spent quite a time on the topics of his shoes and that ramp and his holding the glass of water. As if that matters any more - it's history, get over it. You need policies and what he is and isn't going to do. Unfortunately what he does has a tangential impact on us, and the rest of the world. I suspect that whatever he does will, like the Mexico wall will get undone by the next incumbent, and quickly. What a waste of money. Please don't re-elect him. Please don't. Please. Don't.
England has a wall its called the ocean Does England allow anyone who wants to enter the country.

Why are we supposed to have open borders when hardly any other country in the world does

So in your opinion anyone who wants can just walk into our country And the next day expect us to care for and support him

President Trump will be reelected

User avatar
Sinned
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: York, England

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by Sinned »

OS, the English Channel is a device that allows the French to escort, with their naval ships, flimsy, disposable dinghies filled with illegal immigrants thus getting rid of them from camps on the northern French shores thus creating an entry way to England. We are honour bound to accept them,for a time at least. At the moment there are people queuing up, nay risking life and limb, to get in here. Why? I don't know, because I would have thought that France, Belgium, Holland and other European countries would have as good, if not better, welfare systems and living conditions. We have very little available housing to accommodate any influx and very few jobs, except low paid ones, for immigrants. So, yes our borders are open. We'd like a bit more control over them and who we let in but only time and Brexit will tell on that.

As for Trumpy Pumpy, you can tell that I'm not a fan. He looks ridiculous, acts ridiculous, his tweets are inane - any person that uses Twitter as their main means of communication is by definition, certifiable. That's as good a reason for NOT having a Twitter account as any, and I don't. That he did away with the daily corona virus briefings early on says it all. The differences between his and our own briefings were illuminating. I don't suppose that your media carried any footage of our daily briefings. Half of what Trump said in them was idiotic and to openly argue with the press - not on. Hopefully he won't get elected - but that's up to you lot over there. I have always thought that you, Dan, had a lot more sense than to be so enamored with such a buffoon. Oh, well.
I believe in offering every assistance short of actual help but then mainly just want to be left to be myself in all my difference and uniqueness.

User avatar
oldsalt1
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 8:25 pm
Location: Long Island, New York

Re: It's all about "sex"

Post by oldsalt1 »

Actually Sinned your comments have inspired me to do something. I have just finished sending an additional contribution to President Trump's election fund

Just maybe if he was able to have a slight chance of getting fair media representation he would be able to nix his present methods of trying to get his message out.

I guess that having open borders doesn't matter when nobody wants to get in any way.

Even with that you would like to have more control over them If you want more control why aren't we allowed to try to have more control. over our borders.

And since you feel it is not our right to try to protect our borders would you like to make a contribution to help to support all of these people .

Locked