TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 97 of 170
Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Electoral College is the Flaw.
Immediately the Democrats always have 100 pts in just 5 states, EVERY year.
I don't believe in a Popular vote, but I believe that all states should split the Electoral votes based off of the popular votes.
It's bullshit that 20 Electoral votes swing one way with only a 1% majority.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician. The voters even think that is what they are doing, but if you stand far enough back where you can't hear the voters' glib rationalizations for their decisions and look only at what voters do, I think voters know no more than a flipping coin. Elections are too much like heads for Democrat, tails for Republican. There is an article on that very subject called Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-c
lose
Only four times since 1824 has the winner received more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Since 2000, the candidates have been separated by an average of 3.5 points. The article dissects several very popular, and probably wrong, explanations then it gets to the best one that nearly every expert that the author talked to zeroed in on: the median voter theorem.
The median voter model seems to assume that the voters are uniformly distributed across the political spectrum. However, what if the distribution has changed so that there is greater concentration towards both right and left ends of the spectrum? That would explain why both politicians have moved away from centrist platforms. As long as both politicians are able to accurately assess the 'average' mood of their bases, and position themselves accordingly, the race can still be close, without either party’s platform being centrist.
When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.
All of everything else was bullshit in between. Forgive me for editing it Second....
This is exactly the entire race.
Where you gonna go?
Where you gonna run?
Where you gonna hide?
Nowhere....
Because there's no-one like you left....
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to u
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The design flaw has come home to roost, Thgrri, I await your response with great anticipation.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The "mood" is circumvented by the "lies" and who does it better, or so it would seem. Politicians poll the voters to death and gear up for the battle
to gain the edge in every possible manner, but the rule of the day is to outmaneuver your opponent toward that goal.
Manipulating the Big Lie, seems to me, to be the weapon of choice. Propaganda
and it's control have ceased the day. Careful and methodical manipulation.
For example: Giuliani reveals, in a Fox interview, that he had an inkling as to the October surprise of Comey's last minute reveal of the Weiner/Huma e-mails. He was gleeful in his reveal to the point of smacking his lips over
how delighted he was.
Then Chris Matthews interviews him and he back-pedaled so fast he almost choked on his words. It was really sad to see. As Matthews pressed, as he
is known to do, Giuliani stumbled and gagged his way to a safer position.
He now claimed that he knew nothing and even offered a differing account of what he meant to say. No, he said, I received my info from "former" FBI agents. When he clearly stated before that "they" were angry that Comey had
abandoned the prosecution path. The interview also broached the subject of
"leaks" within the FBI ranks. Who are these so-called "leakers" and if they
want to "expose" Hillary for being "crooked" then step forward and present the facts. Congress could appoint a Special Prosecutor. End of story.
Comey reveals that he wanted to prevent a leak. So he writes a letter to Congress stating that they found something, new e-mails, that may be
pertinent to the case.
650,000 e-mails, allegedly. All on Weiner's laptop, shared by Huma. But Comey offered few details, leaving a huge opening for speculation and innuendo. When was this discovered? How many e-mails were "pertinent"? How many e-mails belonged to Huma, specifically and how many were to Clinton?
What is the time frame? How long did they have this laptop? When did they actually make the discovery? Nothing, nada, zilch......we found something,
that was it! Comey was CYA.....that's what's real. He needs to worry about that "leak" within the Bureau. Why would he inform Congress of an ongoing investigation? Isn't he supposed to stay neutral?
For example: The Judge Curiel - he could have easily set the trial for Trump's fraud case well before the election, citing pressure from the Dems.
But he set the trial for late November, the 28th, as Trump mistakenly cited as the day of the election in one of his rallies. The judge was obviously
sticking to Justice Dept. tradition and protocol regarding not influencing
the general election. Yet, some have completely ignored that little tidbit.
The case has been on the docket since 2010, according to a CBS News report, and Curiel was concerned about a trial during the campaign, partly out of concern for the jurors' safety. "Ultimately that's my Number 1 concern."
To this day, the FBI have refused to reveal more about their discovery of
the contents of the Weiner laptop. Curious that the discovery came now, since the investigation into Weiner's online sexting started in September. Hillary's Secretary of State tenure was from 2009 to 2013, that's 4 years. So the FBI can narrow down the search to those years and limit the e-mails to Huma's part of the laptop. If they find criminal behavior, I say go for it. But, I think it's all BULLSHIT. They, the FBI agents that are "angry" about Comey's lack of balls, they have forced the issue. But do "they" have the smoking gun? The hard evidence that a crime was committed. Really!?
Don't you think that by now they would have found something to nail her ass?
Regardless, "they" can be angry all they want, the proof is in the pudding.
It's pretty simple: Cough up or shut the fuck up! Oh, and by the way, How is it that Colin Powell isn't facing the same scru
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just as an aside, SECOND, here is a list of possible design flaws to consider:
As you mentioned, Presidential v Parliamentarian system.
As SIX mentioned, the electoral college.
Here are a few more:
The people who get to decide the boundaries of voting districts are partisan. Gerrymadering much?
The people purchase and manage the voting machines and the voting districts are partisan. Rigging much?
The media is privately owned, which means that the media will represent the will of private owners and private ownership.
In fact, the idea that we have a group pf people who we elect to make decisions for us concentrates so much power in so few hands that it's tempting and cheap for the elites to buy off those few. If we had direct democracy, the elites would have to buy off at least half the people, right?
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin rulinNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.
Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.
OK, I'm back
SIG
A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!
My response
What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3
My Response
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.
Quote SIG
But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
My Response
Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME