Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

[Griz882]

With large data, we've crossed a line. Horribly undemocratic. By the way, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention parties (does it?) They are not a formal part of our government.

This is total BS.

View attachment 39081

I agree that the imagine you show is complete BS. And you are correct to note that the Constitution does not mention “parties” as it also doesn’t mention “districts.” That leaves us with Article 1, Section 4, “ times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof” which takes us back to parties and state political majorities.

 

[Griz882]

And we don't have a Speaker of the House....why?

Are you seriously blaming that on “newness?” Those eight or nine people are going to be the same in 40 years when they are still in office…because term limits = hard.

 

[AllAmerican75]

You're right, it certainly is laughable how few eligible citizens actually vote in this country.

Maybe if voting actually meant something to these people and they were actually engaged in the political process and they had to earn their right to vote instead of just being handed it when they turn 18, then maybe we would have better voting outcomes.

As it stands, the more we've expanded the franchise, the smaller the percentage of Americans who actually vote has become. In fact, lowering the voting age to 18 was supposed to drive up voter engagement decades ago but it has yet to pan out. Maybe the actual solution is to reduce the amount of people who can vote to a group who already have proven they are engaged and actually care about the long term prosperity and safety of our nation.

 

[croakerfish]

Maybe if voting actually meant something to these people and they were actually engaged in the political process and they had to earn their right to vote instead of just being handed it when they turn 18, then maybe we would have better voting outcomes.

As it stands, the more we've expanded the franchise, the smaller the percentage of Americans who actually vote has become. In fact, lowering the voting age to 18 was supposed to drive up voter engagement decades ago but it has yet to pan out. Maybe the actual solution is to reduce the amount of people who can vote to a group who already have proven they are engaged and actually care about the long term prosperity and safety of our nation.

Here it comes.

 

[Flash]

Are you seriously blaming that on “newness?” Those eight or nine people are going to be the same in 40 years when they are still in office…because term limits = hard.

I most certainly am, they’re all pretty new and either font seem to know or care how out government is run for the most part. Some of their Republican colleagues have said so, explicitly.

As for term limits, I think they’re a lazy cop out that will result in nothing more than a lot more folks who are unaware or don’t care how our government runs serving in Congress.

As it stands, the more we've expanded the franchise, the smaller the percentage of Americans who actually vote has become. In fact, lowering the voting age to 18 was supposed to drive up voter engagement decades ago but it has yet to pan out. Maybe the actual solution is to reduce the amount of people who can vote to a group who already have proven they are engaged and actually care about the long term prosperity and safety of our nation.

How very…Heinlein-esque and undemocratic of you. I keep seeing this kind of BS crop up more revelry and am always amused that folks think this will 1- somehow actually happen and 2- that they would happen to be in the group of folks that actually get to vote.

After a long and bloody history of trying to ensure that EVERY adult citizen of this country has the right to vote I would think folks would know better. Guess not.

 

[Griz882]

I most certainly am, they’re all pretty new and either font seem to know or care how out government is run for the most part. Some of their Republican colleagues have said so, explicitly.

As for term limits, I think they’re a lazy cop out that will result in nothing more than a lot more folks who are unaware or don’t care how our government runs serving in Congress.

As I said, they will be the same people in 30 or 40 years and in the same seats - they still won’t care how government works don’t want it to work.

Back to term limits, it is not a cop out, it is a contract with the people of your district. You have a set period of time to do your job then get out. It is probably the only legal way we prevent this kind of malfunction for the next 15 or 20 years with, of course, the exception of an actual economic meltdown or a global war that actually impacts every American.

 

[Mirage]

I most certainly am, they’re all pretty new and either font seem to know or care how out government is run for the most part. Some of their Republican colleagues have said so, explicitly.

As for term limits, I think they’re a lazy cop out that will result in nothing more than a lot more folks who are unaware or don’t care how our government runs serving in Congress.

Perhaps we should also do away with term limits for the president? That way we have someone that really gets to know the job. We could even call him/her "King/Queen" while we're at it! We could even come up with an equivalent system to gerrymandering for the president that means they are never under threat of losing an election.. that way we can be sure they feel secure in their job and don't care about the whims of their electorate!

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Stimulating conversation but what does any of this have to do with the thread title or are we all cool with topical max performance turns? If so, I'll wave off and get back to listening. Just curious.

Last point: We need vastly more ship building capacity or we'll lose the next war against a peer adversary.

 

[AllAmerican75]

ry…Heinlein-esque and undemocratic of you. I keep seeing this kind of BS crop up more revelry and am always amused that folks think this will 1- somehow actually happen and 2- that they would happen to be in the group of folks that actually get to vote.

After a long and bloody history of trying to ensure that EVERY adult citizen of this country has the right to vote I would think folks would know better. Guess not.

Heinlein was undemocratic? Literally anyone could earn the right to vote through service. It was explained early on in the book that if you wanted to serve, the government would find a place for you even if all you did was be a janitor for two years. That's no more or less democratic than what we have today. The same people signing up to serve would likely be the same people who already vote today.

If you feel so strongly, would you support felons voting? What about foreigners here on a visa? How about people in the country illegally? Maybe they don't even need to be here in the US in order to vote. We could send mail-in ballots to everyone around the world who requests one. Where do you draw the line?

Here it comes.

So what's your solution to getting voters engaged and better informed so that they make better decisions in the voting booth and don't just keep electing the same ineffective and/or corrupt politicians over and over again for decades?

 

[JTS11]

...If you feel so strongly, would you support felons voting? What about foreigners here on a visa? How about people in the country illegally? Maybe they don't even need to be here in the US in order to vote. We could send mail-in ballots to everyone around the world who requests one. Where do you draw the line?

Be honest, how many Gadsden flags or bumper stickers do you own?

 

[AllAmerican75]

Be honest, how many Gadsden flags or bumper stickers do you own?

Zero. Also, the idea of service guaranteeing citizenship is Heinlein's only good idea. Otherwise, he was a sexual deviant and would have weird sex parties with his wife and used his libertarian ideology as a way to justify that.

 

[Mirage]

You shouldn't have to serve to vote.. but you should have to pay taxes. If you don't contibute to society, you shouldn't get to participate in it's governance. Just leads to vote buying and corruption.

 

[JTS11]

You shouldn't have to serve to vote.. but you should have to pay taxes. If you don't contibute to society, you shouldn't get to participate in it's governance. Just leads to vote buying and corruption.

Who doesn't pay taxes? Or are you specifically referring to federal income taxes?

 

[croakerfish]

So what's your solution to getting voters engaged and better informed so that they make better decisions in the voting booth and don't just keep electing the same ineffective and/or corrupt politicians over and over again for decades?

I think that having a voice in your governance is a human right and you don’t have to earn it by scratching the back of whoever is already in charge through whatever arbitrary service requirements they come up with. I also don’t see how having less people voting is supposed to solve the problem of a disengaged population. They’re Americans, not Sparta’s helots.

 

[Mirage]

Who doesn't pay taxes? Or are you specifically referring to federal income taxes?

Yes. Paying sales or other taxes using money the federal govt gave you doesn't count. The idea is to be a net contributor to society, meaning you receive less than you give.

Put another way, if I lived in a commune with 50 people, and 40 of us worked and pulled our weight, and 10 did not but lived off the work of the 40, I wouldn't care too much what those 10 thought we should do with the resources the 40 of us generated.