Aquina and Kenny Discussion Thread.

[kasheku]

hehe yea. Its like the internets preschool up in here

haah

[RS2050]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

whatever........Let me know when you have an actually point to make.

I don't think you understand how our system works so I'll explain it to you.

Unlike a parliamentary system in which the party is voted for at the ballot box and coalitions of parties form majorities. In our Republic, individuals are voted for and majority status is based on how many of those individuals caucus with each other. For instance, not everyone who caucuses on Capital Hill with the Democrats is actually a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. he is a socialist but he caucuses with Democrats. Likewise, there have been Independents that have caucused with Republicans. For all intents and purposes though, the D or R is put behind their names even though they are not technically D or R.

Secondly, no elected politician in the Congress has to vote according to party affiliation, unlike a parliamentary system where the elected official has to vote along the party line. There are Democrats who voted with Republicans against Obamacare and there were three Republicans who voted with Democrats in Obama's stimulus package.

Very very few votes in Washington D.C. are cast 100% down party lines. Unlike a parliamentary system, our politicians are not beholden to their parties but rather their constituents.

Congressmen, or Representatives or Legislatures which are all alternate names for House members, are elected every two years. All of them come from districts that are more or less, equal in population. In fact, if one district becomes too populous, it's divided into two in the next census redistricting. We redistrict every ten years and it's implemented two years after the census. So Reps are far more concerned about their own districts and their own constituents than anything else.

Senators have six year terms and every two years, 1/3 of them are up for a vote. The idea being that Senators are supposed to be our Statesmen and by having longer terms and larger constituencies, they are supposed to be lest beholden to tiny districts. In the constitution, originally, our House members were supposed to elect our Senators but that changed and now states directly elect them. Senators are not proportioned to population. There are only two per state and both of a state's senators are never up for election at the same time.

A Senator or Represenative may switch or change parties at any time. They do not have to vote along party lines and they can decide to not caucus with anyone if they don't want to. btw, there is one caucus along racial lines in the U.S Congress and that's the Black Caucus which is technically open to everyone but generally only blacks join and it's affiliated with the Democrat Caucus.

If you want to get rid of parties, you'd have to start by individual districts electing candidates that are neither party. however, that's probably not going to make a big difference since a red district in Nebraska is still going to vote for someone who fits with their red district and that Politician is still going to vote as a Republican most of the time. The same is true if you tried to run a non R or D in New York City. They may not have the R or D behind their name, but it would still be a liberal that would vote overwhelmingly with the Democrats because New york City is deep blue.

People who think that third parties are the answer, usually don't understand that if a third party candidate can't win in either of the parties, that candidate is probably not going to win in the general election. It's not because the people are "brainwashed" into D or R, it's because the third party candidates are usually lacking political acumen, finesse and understanding. Third party candidates, except the very ideological among them like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, often assume that they are the "center" and if they run on this platform, everyone will flock to them to break the gridlock. The problem is, they usually aren't the center but the go along to get along candidates who greatly underestimate the complexity of government and political spectrum and the social landscape.

For example, most third party candidates are pro-abortion and don't see abortion as a real issue at all. They think they can just say they are for abortion and well, gee, everyone agrees with that right? The reality is, most people in the USA are not pro-abortion. They are pro-life. The people of the USA never voted on abortion. The SCOTUS took it out of our hands and it became law of the land based on nine judges' opinions that summarily and completely overturned the laws of all fifty states. Including states, like Hawaii and New York that actually did allow abortion during the first trimester. Furthermore, even people who are pro-abortion are not necessarily in favor of abortion on demand, using abortion as a substitute for birth control or third trimester abortions (partial birth abortion). There's also the problem with some people opposing abortion solely because the SCOTUS took it out of the hands of the people, out of the hands of the states and basically acted like an oligarchy in overturning the laws of all fifty states based on Norma McCorvey's lies. Part of the pro-life movement isn't pro-life at all, it's anti SCOTUS. Then there are those who are pro-life because they object to taxpayer funded abortions and don't believe that the taxpayer should be on the hook for some girl's abortion. They believe that even if it is legal, taxpayers shouldn't have to fund it. The Pro-Life movement in the Republican party is made up of those three factions and there are some in the Democrat party who are sympathetic to one or more of those factions. So it's not as easy as a third party candidate getting up and saying, okay, abortion is legal, question settled. only Christian idiots are pro-life. In fact, given that the pro-lifers outnumber pro-choicers or pro-aborts by almost 1.5 to 1 and it is the most divisive issue in American politics, third party candidates completely destroy themselves on the issue right out of the gate almost like clockwork.

Thank you for the long lecture (I mean it, happy that you did)! I never mind to learn (filling the gabs) as long time permits. I'm surprised you mention Christians idiots? Well, for somebody who believes in election and the spirit of the right to chose! We have absolutely no right to call anybody based on his or her views as idiot! What you think?

I'm a Catholic since the days numbers were recognized by letters! I never thought or will think abortion is a problem as long the mom and biological dad agree on doing so. I believe it's their own right to predict their future and their upbringing. My religion is for my soul and I have no right to force others to abide by my own rules as long they see things differently which I really respect.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by RS2050

Thank you for the long lecture (I mean it, happy that you did)! I never mind to learn (filling the gabs) as long time permits. I'm surprised you mention Christians idiots? Well, for somebody who believes in election and the spirit of the right to chose! We have absolutely no right to call anybody based on his or her views as idiot! What you think?

I'm a Catholic since the days numbers were recognized by letters! I never thought or will think abortion is a problem as long the mom and biological dad agree on doing so. I believe it's their own right to predict their future and their upbringing. My religion is for my soul and I have no right to force others to abide by my own rules as long they see things differently which I really respect.

LOL, I wasn't calling Christian idiots. I meant that's the argument that a lot of pro-abortion people make. That the only reason why someone would disagree with abortion on demand is if they're Christian and Christians are idiots, ergo, all pro-lifers are idiots.

There's a lot of half baked people out there who think anyone who has a moral objection to anything must have the objection rooted in their religion and thus they are stupid. I tend to think it goes the other way. People remain or choose religions based on the morality of the religion. Despite what the religion haters think, most people in the USA will change their religion at least once during their lifetime. Some people change it four or five times.

As for your belief system, that works if both the mom and dad agree but the reality is, the mom usually feels financially forced into it and the dad hasn't got a say in the decision at all.

[RS2050]

Originally Posted by Aquina1300

As for your belief system, that works if both the mom and dad agree but the reality is, the mom usually feels financially forced into it and the dad hasn't got a say in the decision at all.

This is totally wrong! Why the lady got the final word while the guy who essentially will bare the burden of supporting a new born until adulthood or even go through the abortion which possibly he wants to create a family with the pregnant. I see it as 98% social problem rather than religious! I thought we are equal despite the differences in gender!

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by RS2050

This is totally wrong! Why the lady got the final word while the guy who essentially will bare the burden of supporting a new born until adulthood or even go through the abortion which possibly he wants to create a family with the pregnant. I see it as 98% social problem rather than religious! I thought we are equal despite the differences in gender!

there ya go......welcome to most divisive issue in the USA.

Like I said, almost all third party candidates think the way to get votes on this highly divisive issue is to say "I am personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't push my morality on anyone else." it makes sense to say that only to someone who doesn't really understand the factions behind the issues. third party candidates often think they can just repeat that one sentence and then go off talking about their personal economic/political theory. What they don't realize, is 50% of the voters already ruled them out on that one sentence alone.

[sprodge]

Pussy pass is a thing...