Campaigns beginning again

[annewandering]

When do we have to stop naming names on candidates for President?

[skippy740]

I still haven't recovered from the last campaign.

[LittleWyvern]

I still haven't recovered from the last campaign.

I know how you feel. Every time somebody uses the word "unskew" I giggle a little.

[Gretchen]

When do we have to stop naming names on candidates for President?

When can we stop? After Earth explodes like Krypton did in the Superman movies.

[estradling75]

When do we have to stop naming names on candidates for President?

The group that runs this site is a non profit, tax-exempt organization.

As such they have to follow the rules and laws governing such groups with respect to "Supporting Political Candidates".

Now since the exact line is defined by expensive lawyers and since politics is not the purpose of LDS.NET. The mods have been instructed to err on the side of safety and potentially be more overly restrictive then the law requires in this matter.

When a candidate officially announces that they are running for an Office (any office really) is the big line in the sand that we draw for that candidate.

However if candidates have announced... and other potential candidates seem to be dragging out an official announcement... Well then it not quite as clear for the potentials but again we tend to err on the side of caution.

[Just_A_Guy]

I know how you feel. Every time somebody uses the word "unskew" I giggle a little.

I have the same reaction when I hear "save Detroit", or "deficit neutral", or "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it". My reaction to "get in their faces" and "punish our enemies" is, I fear, comparatively mirthless; given recent revelations.

[FunkyTown]

Am I allowed to talk about the elections everyone cares about?

That is: Christopher Townsend's stunning Independent victory in Ashtead Council, ahead of... Get this: TIM ASHTON! The UKIP member.

The major parties finished _third or worse_.

I think we all thank the 5341 people who voted in this incredible election.

[Just_A_Guy]

FT, you remain awesome.

[Guest]

Could we just. . . not?

[pam]

Am I allowed to talk about the elections everyone cares about?

That is: Christopher Townsend's stunning Independent victory in Ashtead Council, ahead of... Get this: TIM ASHTON! The UKIP member.

The major parties finished _third or worse_.

I think we all thank the 5341 people who voted in this incredible election.

As far as rules you can talk about all the UK or Canadian politicians and elections you want. It doesn't affect our status. :)

Now whether our readers want to read about it all is another story. :)

[LittleWyvern]

I have the same reaction when I hear "save Detroit", or "deficit neutral", or "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it". My reaction to "get in their faces" and "punish our enemies" is, I fear, comparatively mirthless; given recent revelations.

Someday we're all going to sit around a fire somewhere and have the weirdest nostalgia.

[NeuroTypical]

Forget president - how about Colorado?

[state-specific-Rant]As I drive to and from work, I hear election ads for state senators - and their terms are not up this year. Senators Morse from Colorado Springs, and Giron from Pueblo, have both been sucesfully recalled in forced recall elections.

Because they pushed for stupid gun laws that do absolutely nothing besides make things harder for law abiding people. And they refused to hear sufficient debate on the legislation, even changing Senate rules to push the bills through.

50 of Colorado's Sheriffs are suing to kill the stupid laws. And Morse and Giron's recall has sent a message to the rest of America, that yes, we know you're an elected official, but no, your need to be seen as 'doing something' doesn't mean you should pass stupid, feel-good, useless, harmful, unconstitutional horse puckey laws.[/state-specific-Rant]

Edited August 13, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Canuck Mormon]

You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!

[Dravin]

You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!

The president is elected every four years, 1/3 the senate is up for election every 2 years (they have 6 year terms), and the house of representatives is up for election every 2 years. So there are elections sending someone to national office every 2 years and every 4 years a huge chunk of the government is up for election. Not to mention state and local offices.

Edited August 14, 2013 by Dravin

[TheMusicTheory]

You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!

A great deal of the reason for this, other than our elections being quite frequent, is that here in the US, we have a culture of "otherism".

American Politics is tribal. It is very much an "US vs. THEM" mindset. It is instilled in us from the start. We treat politics like we treat sports. We're on one team, and other people are on the opposite team and THOSE PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS WRONG! ARG! I AM SO ANGRY AT THOSE PEOPLE!

It's nearly bloodsport at this point.

American culture revolves almost entirely around the concept of 'teams'. It's your high school football team vs. the rival's, it's Ford vs. Chevy, it's Coke vs. Pepsi, Cats vs. Dogs, Liberals vs. Conservatives, etc. Anything that we can latch onto and identify with becomes "ours", and the alternative is an affront to all we stand for. Grey areas? Never heard of 'em. Everything is broken down into a black and white argument.

Thus, differing with "us" on any one thing is tantamount to differing with us on ALL things. There is no in-between: you're either with us or against us. This, more than any other facet of our culture, is why things get so ridiculous in our politics; if the 'wrong' team does something good, then that thing MUST be bad. If that thing is NOT bad, you must find a way to frame it as bad, or risk looking like one of "them". You wind up with people who actually revel in ignorance of multiple viewpoints and see anyone who would DARE oppose ANY view that they hold as an absolute affront to "God, Country, and the American Way ".

This is why America can only ever have a two-party system, and why it is almost always a very close split. It's the reason you sometimes see conservative people use terms like "LIEbral" and "Libtard", or liberal folk decry conservatives as ignorant hillbillies or worse. Painting is easiest when you use a wide brush, after all.

Consider also how the media works here in America, and how thoroughly it controls the narrative. Realize that in America you can pick a political side and then, if you wish, never consume ANY media that doesn't fit your political bias. You can go an entire day, from waking until bed, consuming nothing but 'opinion' pieces and listening to the talking heads do nothing but re-enforce your point of view. 24/7 news channels, of which there are several, mostly cover politics, and are usually filled almost entirely with appeals to emotion, a mix of outrage and figurative cries of "Ha! Look how dumb and wrong those other people are!".

You are never required to be exposed to views that are different than yours if you do not wish to be. You can 'otherize' the living heck out of the people you disagree with, radicalize your beliefs, and never have any exposure to the other side that isn't one of anger or mocking. YOU are right because you're part of party X, which is opposite of party Y, who is *always* wrong. And, sadly, I fear American education isn't good enough for the general masses to realize a fallacy this obvious (considering what passes for political discourse these days, I think I'm right).

In short: American Politics is Tribal Warfare, only much, MUCH worse.

[pam]

You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!

What's this YOU Americans thing CM? Don't lump me in with all of the collective "You." I get tired of them as well.

[Lakumi]

You Americans seem to LOVE elections. It seems like every year there's one. The worst part is, because we get American TV up here, we are bombarded with all the election comercials. UGH!! Please tell me the next one is a few years off!!!

and its not even entertaining

[bytor2112]

Politics...way too many people are allowed to vote.

Bytor suggests the following would be more appropriate for election eligibility:

1. Must be a US citizen and have a valid ID card/dl license.

2. Must be at least 25 or have taxable income. Military members exempt and can vote at any age.

3. Must not be over age 74.

4. Must not be on government assistance. (social security doesn't count.) That includes government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.

I never thought the likes of our current President would ever dupe so many and so am now terrified of the thought that Billary might actually get in.:eek:

I know I will not vote for the fat dude from New Jersey....if he runs.....just saying.

Edited August 16, 2013 by bytor2112

[LittleWyvern]

2. Must be at least 25 or have taxable income. Military members exempt and can vote at any age.

4. Must not be on government assistance. (social security doesn't count.) That includes government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.

Why not go the rest of the way and make a set income requirement to vote?

[Lakumi]

yeah see when a country alienates a large swathe of their population (and what with wages going down the poor are only getting more in number) that's when things like riots and coo's happen.

just because you dislike who is in office doesn't mean that, hey lets simply deny millions of citizens their right to vote because they are poor and poor people are obviously useless to our country-they by and large don't believe what we want them to believe so they deserve nothing but poverty and death.

yeah can't see anything wrong with complete oppression, its worked so well for the US in the past hasn't it?

[talisyn]

Politics...way too many people are allowed to vote.

Bytor suggests the following would be more appropriate for election eligibility:

1. Must be a US citizen and have a valid ID card/dl license.

2. Must be at least 25 or have taxable income. Military members exempt and can vote at any age.

3. Must not be over age 74.

4. Must not be on government assistance. (social security doesn't count.) That includes government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.

I never thought the likes of our current President would ever dupe so many and so am now terrified of the thought that Billary might actually get in.:eek:

I know I will not vote for the fat dude from New Jersey....if he runs.....just saying.

It helps to have these ideas right after an economic bust, then we can really see who the deserving voters are.

[panacea]

yeah see when a country alienates a large swathe of their population (and what with wages going down the poor are only getting more in number) that's when things like riots and coo's happen.

just because you dislike who is in office doesn't mean that, hey lets simply deny millions of citizens their right to vote because they are poor and poor people are obviously useless to our country-they by and large don't believe what we want them to believe so they deserve nothing but poverty and death.

yeah can't see anything wrong with complete oppression, its worked so well for the US in the past hasn't it?

When voting is cheapened by allowing masses of people that take from the producers via the dole and vote because they are promised more., large swathes of people are alienated.

Limitations on the very aged is as wise as requiring an attained age and just as some citizens lose their right to vote because of felony convictions, others should not be allowed to vote if they have been living on government assistance. Oh, and identification is only common sense.

Seems like asking someone to have earned income is appropriate. If you want to vote to raise taxes, then you should be paying income taxes yourself.

I agree with Bytor.

[panacea]

It helps to have these ideas right after an economic bust, then we can really see who the deserving voters are.

The economic bust was in 2008 and the economy has been out of recession for at least three years. While not a sturdy recovery, a recovery none the less. I didn't vote for our current President, but, whatever bust anyone is experiencing currently, he and his ilk are at fault.

[LittleWyvern]

It helps to have these ideas right after an economic bust, then we can really see who the deserving voters are.

I don't think we can assume rich = deserving that easily.

Edited August 22, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[panacea]

I don't think we can assume rich = deserving that easily.

Right on. And maybe as an add-on to Bytors suggestion and Tals comment is having an earned income prior to the economic bust. I am not sure Bytor thinks unemployment compensation is the same as living on the dole.