Political Junkies: Predictions for U.S. Mid-Terms?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

A ton of experience dealing with diplomacy/negotiation etc. in the names involved -- Who would you like to deal with it?

I just don't think it's going to work and I hope it isn't going to pass. It creates another entity for instability in the Middle East. The Muslim terrorists will have another target for attacks. It will be Israel all over again and it will lead to more war.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by FireFly

They have various elections every year on the first Tuesday of November. And yes it makes sense to have elections and NOT vote for the President... what would get done if you swapped Presidents every year? A whole lotta nothing.

Agreed. Actually, the part that doesn't make sense is having congressional elections every 2 years. These guys are constantly running for office. I think they should run elections for the whole schmeer, Congress, Senate, President, every 4 or 5 years. Maybe it's because that's what I'm used to, but it seems logical to me. Otherwise people are bound to lose interest, knowing that elections are like Christmas--they come around every year.

[jolinar of malkshor]

When do we get the first results?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

When do we get the first results?

Probably around 6:00 your time(assuming you're in Calgary). It will take a while to get a good picture of what's happening, though.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Agreed. Actually, the part that doesn't make sense is having congressional elections every 2 years. These guys are constantly running for office. I think they should run elections for the whole schmeer, Congress, Senate, President, every 4 or 5 years. Maybe it's because that's what I'm used to, but it seems logical to me. Otherwise people are bound to lose interest, knowing that elections are like Christmas--they come around every year.

Well I guess that might work, but we would have to vote on other things every year anyways. Do they not vote on state and city bonds in Canada or changes in law that require public approval?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well I guess that might work, but we would have to vote on other things every year anyways. Do they not vote on state and city bonds in Canada or changes in law that require public approval?

Nope. We vote for MP's, MLA's, Alderman (Federal, Provincial, Municipal representatives). Thats it (as far as I know).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well I guess that might work, but we would have to vote on other things every year anyways. Do they not vote on state and city bonds in Canada or changes in law that require public approval?

Referenda are pretty uncommon, but they do happen from time to time. Certainly not enough of them to justify an election every year. The process of creating ballot initiatives in the U.S. has largely been co-opted by special interests anyway; I think it may be time to do away with it. Just my opinion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Referenda are pretty uncommon, but they do happen from time to time. Certainly not enough of them to justify an election every year. The process of creating ballot initiatives in the U.S. has largely been co-opted by special interests anyway; I think it may be time to do away with it. Just my opinion.

Referendum's are pretty rare though... how many have we voted on in Alberta in the past decade?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Well I guess that might work, but we would have to vote on other things every year anyways. Do they not vote on state and city bonds in Canada or changes in law that require public approval?

We don't vote on any of that stuff. In fact, I don't even know what a state or city bond is.

We don't vote for judges, sherrifs or anything else. Just representatives. I don't think laws are ever covered in an election. We had a referendum about 15 years ago but I can't think of another instance where we voted on a law and even that one was a constitution type thing. I'm probably wrong on that but I can't remember another instance.

We're a docile bunch. We don't vote on laws, we just accept them as-is from our Overlords.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

We're a docile bunch. We don't vote on laws, we just accept them as-is from our Overlords.

That's "Insect Overlords" to you, pal!

You're right, though--I can't remember ever voting in a referendum in a provincial election. It may be my bad memory, but it really isn't ringing a bell. I know it's possible, but as you say we generally leave legislation to the legislators. I don't know--I like our system better.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's "Insect Overlords" to you, pal!

You're right, though--I can't remember ever voting in a referendum in a provincial election. It may be my bad memory, but it really isn't ringing a bell. I know it's possible, but as you say we generally leave legislation to the legislators. I don't know--I like our system better.

Come to think of it I believe we did once vote on something to do with VLTs. That might have just been a Lethbridge thing though.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh the blab, blab don't know what I'm talking about king continues.

Yes Johnny YOU are continuing on. Keep your head tilted to the right, it makes your crown look nicer.

In fact the partioning of IRAQ is now referred to as a loose federation.

A "loose federation". Uh huh. Is that what you call it when each side is trying to kill the other? WWII was not really a war, it was just a collection of countries in a "loose federation". Wow, you'll buy anything that comes with snazzy catch phrase!

As for Turkey Richard Holbrooke said that in fact Turkey would like American troops in the Kurdish state and that the Kurds would agree to it. He also states that the plan is the basis for a solution.

They did, did they? Turkey wants US troops there so they can look after the mess the United States started and stem the flow of refugees into Turkey. They want nothing to do with a Kurdish state. Nothing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_kurds05.html

1. Three loose states in a Union

Three states that can't agree on anything but to try and kill each other. To form a union there has to be some level of cooperation and understanding between the parties. None of that exists in Iraq in any shape or form, unless killing Americans is the goal.

2. Tax policy that shares the wealth.

So one autonomous region is going to share its wealth with another? You actually believe this crap? These people are presently killing each other for who has a certain last name, and some how they are going to agree to being taxed and that money going to another "state"? What a pipe dream.

3. American troops in Kurdish state to stabilize the

Already pointed out that this won't happen. The United States will not jeopardize its relationship with Turkey to establish a Kurdish state, one that will **** off not only Turkey, but Syria.

Yep you have a bi-partisan and Congressionally created committee backed by the former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke that thinks the plan will work. Yeah you know the guys who have actually been in government or are and those who have actually been involved in diplomacy.

Are these the same guys who designed and implemented US foreign policy, the same policy that has the region on the verge of coming a part at the seems? Diplomacy is a foreign word to these hypocrites. They enforce the will of the United States, not do what is best for the region in question.

But yeah it's flawed cause well Lanny says so --- LOL what a joke!!!

No, its flawed because it does not answer the needs of the region. Keep dodging the questions Johnny, but they aren't going to disappear.

1) How does this magical plan work in answering the obvious regional inequity?

2) How does this brilliant partitioning strategy create security in Iraq when there is economic and infrastructure inequity existent in the proposed regions?

3) How does partitioning create regional stability, when the neighboring nations are not having their wishes observed?

4) Who is going to support the initiative of partitioning in the region when it has the potential to affect their own internal national security and promote ethnic discord?

5) What is going to prevent this partitioning from being a land grab by certain neighboring nations and immediately break out into a larger and much more aggressive war?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Iowa, have you seen any of the exit poll data yet? I'm wondering if we'll see similar anomolies like we did last election.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

We don't vote on any of that stuff. In fact, I don't even know what a state or city bond is.

We don't vote for judges, sherrifs or anything else. Just representatives. I don't think laws are ever covered in an election. We had a referendum about 15 years ago but I can't think of another instance where we voted on a law and even that one was a constitution type thing. I'm probably wrong on that but I can't remember another instance.

We're a docile bunch. We don't vote on laws, we just accept them as-is from our Overlords.

I sometimes wish we didn't vote on bonds, laws I kind of understand, but this bond **** blows my mind. They are voting on approving a new tax to help fund some cause. Problem is no one knows what the **** they actually do with the money. I guess it's good that we can decide if we get taxed, but everytime there is a bond it sounds like a good idea to me, but I really don't know what the money is really going to. There were 5 or 6 bonds on the ballot today. One for Public parks, one for transportation, one for the Arts, some others, they all sounded dandy to me, but I guess I should have done research on them before I went in.

[Vulcan]

In BC, in our last election, we voted on a bill to change our electoral system to give smaller parties a chance to have representitives in our Legislature. I forget what it's called now but other countries such as Ireland use it. I voted for it but it was defeated, probably because it is too complicated and people are suspitious of change.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by FireFly

They have various elections every year on the first Tuesday of November. And yes it makes sense to have elections and NOT vote for the President... what would get done if you swapped Presidents every year? A whole lotta nothing.

Thanks I did not realize they had elections each year. I guess my next question is why have elections every year? Why not once every 4 years like here in Canada. Not saying our way is better just wondering why they need to vote every year?

I think this was answered above but feel free to add to it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Iowa, have you seen any of the exit poll data yet? I'm wondering if we'll see similar anomolies like we did last election.

I guarantee there will be substantial problems in Ohio.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes Johnny YOU are continuing on. Keep your head tilted to the right, it makes your crown look nicer.



A "loose federation". Uh huh. Is that what you call it when each side is trying to kill the other? WWII was not really a war, it was just a collection of countries in a "loose federation". Wow, you'll buy anything that comes with snazzy catch phrase!



They did, did they? Turkey wants US troops there so they can look after the mess the United States started and stem the flow of refugees into Turkey. They want nothing to do with a Kurdish state. Nothing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...6_kurds05.html



Three states that can't agree on anything but to try and kill each other. To form a union there has to be some level of cooperation and understanding between the parties. None of that exists in Iraq in any shape or form, unless killing Americans is the goal.



So one autonomous region is going to share its wealth with another? You actually believe this crap? These people are presently killing each other for who has a certain last name, and some how they are going to agree to being taxed and that money going to another "state"? What a pipe dream.



Already pointed out that this won't happen. The United States will not jeopardize its relationship with Turkey to establish a Kurdish state, one that will **** off not only Turkey, but Syria.



Are these the same guys who designed and implemented US foreign policy, the same policy that has the region on the verge of coming a part at the seems? Diplomacy is a foreign word to these hypocrites. They enforce the will of the United States, not do what is best for the region in question.



No, its flawed because it does not answer the needs of the region. Keep dodging the questions Johnny, but they aren't going to disappear.

1) How does this magical plan work in answering the obvious regional inequity?

2) How does this brilliant partitioning strategy create security in Iraq when there is economic and infrastructure inequity existent in the proposed regions?

3) How does partitioning create regional stability, when the neighboring nations are not having their wishes observed?

4) Who is going to support the initiative of partitioning in the region when it has the potential to affect their own internal national security and promote ethnic discord?

5) What is going to prevent this partitioning from being a land grab by certain neighboring nations and immediately break out into a larger and much more aggressive war?

Ahh I love letting you hang yourself. Holbrooke also pointed out how implementation could be achieved through real threats to remove American troops. Nice to see that you have accepted the American troops in the Kurdish state as a stabilizing force. But hey you go on thinking you know about partition/loose federation. I'm seeing minds with some actual experience and knowledge and success in diplomacy/negotiations about to reccomend this plan to Bush after the elections. That and it has bi-partisan support.

Yours is the shrill "nothing can work" cause I hate Republicans argument. Frankly I bet you are hoping IRAQ gets worse so the Republicans are ousted.

Meanwhile despite your shrill and of course unsubstantiated rubbish that neighboring countries would take over and that diplomacy/negotation is impossible and other mindless blather those who are actually in the know are working on it.

Frankly I find that they think it will work far, far more compelling than your armchair opinion.

[Cowperson]

A few of the more interesting stats I've seen on this particular election is that 79% or so of Americans are "angry" with the current government (President, Congress, etc), yet roughly 67% to 70% (can't remember the exact number) are personally happy with their current local congressperson.

In other words, Americans profoundly want change but they're not necessarily translating that unhappiness onto their local guy.

In effect, they're saying its up to other Americans in other jurisdictions to make the change they're angry about . . . . . hence the limited number of seats actually in play.

Cowperson

[Looger]

i've heard the politburo couldn't match the US congress' incumbency rate.