So... What if Election Day can't happen?

Rose2012 said:
That's too bad, since this disagreement usually results in an entire group of people looking down on another entire group of people. But what do I know...I do know I'm going to bail out of this before I end up giving up on people completely.
Click to expand...

Too late! :rofl:
 
Rose2012 said:
That's too bad, since this disagreement usually results in an entire group of people looking down on another entire group of people. But what do I know...I do know I'm going to bail out of this before I end up giving up on people completely.
Click to expand...

I don't look down on people because of what "group" they belong to. I look down on people because of their actions and how they live their lives. I hate to tell you this, but people are not created equal. It's a matter of fact. If we were created equal, everybody would be a CEO, millionaire, astronaut. The most that some people can hope to achieve is working at the drive-thru or sweeping floors. They might not be glamorous jobs, but they are jobs that make up our society.
 
Wow, guys, thanks...three more people went on my "ignore" list because of this thread.

:thumbsup:
 
JB1842 said:
I don't look down on people because of what "group" they belong to. I look down on people because of their actions and how they live their lives. I hate to tell you this, but people are not created equal. It's a matter of fact. If we were created equal, everybody would be a CEO, millionaire, astronaut. The most that some people can hope to achieve is working at the drive-thru or sweeping floors. They might not be glamorous jobs, but they are jobs that make up our society.
Click to expand...

If everyone was created equal we'd all be bums sitting in the chair waiting for the Obama phones . . . . thank GOD we are not all the same. I know I'm a butthead and I would not want to be my friend!
 
comanchepilot said:
If everyone was created equal we'd all be bums sitting in the chair waiting for the Obama phones . . . . thank GOD we are not all the same. I know I'm a butthead and I would not want to be my friend!
Click to expand...

I'll be your friend...even though you are a lawyer.
 
JB1842 said:
I don't look down on people because of what "group" they belong to. I look down on people because of their actions and how they live their lives. I hate to tell you this, but people are not created equal. It's a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

It is indeed a fact that genetics and environmental factors make us different. These are givens that we cannot control and do not wish to be judged by or held responsible for. As a matter of principle I don't believe most would consider it fair or humanly useful to "look down" on anyone who is forced to live their life a certain way because they were driven there by external factors.

With respect to who should vote - as a matter of principle I think those people who might be affected by legislation or its consequences should to the greatest extent possible be allowed to vote for the legislators who vote on it or the legislation directly.

Absent bad weather, of course.
 
You should have to test in order to vote. Too many dumb people tipping the scales. You can't legally drive until you prove you know the rules of the road. You shouldn't be able to vote until you prove you know what's at stake.
 
JHW said:
so basically, some here are advocating that federal employees are to be the only ones allowed to vote while common people working in the private sector do not vote and exist to serve the government employees ?
Click to expand...

No.

Go read the book.

But basically, to earn citizenship, you must volunteer for a term of service in your society. You go in, you volunteer, you swear to serve for the term or (in the case of national emergency) until you're released. You ENLIST in the service of your society.

That's the last choice you make. They find something for you to do that's useful to the society. You do that until your term is up. You get paid. When your term is up (or if you decide to go career, when you retire), you muster out of service, and you're a citizen. You can NOW vote. You don't get to vote while in service. You can QUIT the service at any time, and all that happens is you don't get to be a citizen. Some examples of service:
Military duty
Research
Exploration
Civil work
Basically whatever the society has decided to have it's government do. The government MUST find you something to do - you volunteer, that's your part. You go up and say "I want to serve my society". The society then says "glad to have you" and finds you something to do.

There are a few professions reserved to citizens - police and some other civil functions.

The theory behind this is that before you get to exercise control over your society, you must put yourself in the service of it, and sacrifice your freedom for it (except the freedom to quit).

It's a really good book, in spite of the fact that it was made into a HORRRIBLE movie. In fact, at one point I think it was required reading for aspiring officers in one of the branches of our armed services - because it tries to answer the question about why anybody in their right mind would volunteer to fight and die for an abstract concept like "nation".
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
... The government MUST find you something to do - you volunteer, that's your part. You go up and say "I want to serve my society". The society then says "glad to have you" and finds you something to do...
Click to expand...
thank goodness we have a constitution that prevents that sort of thing from happening here. History has shown time and again that people serve their society most efficiently by acting with personal initiative and in pursuit of personal advancement. Societies built around "finding something for people to do" haven't fared so well, especially the last half century or so.
 
to earn citizenship

I do immigration work, I can tell you that a large percentage of legal permanent residents or green card holders. Have no interest in becoming citizens. I have seen them have status for 40 years and never apply for citizenship. Even a large percentage from some poor countries, come here apply for social security, welfare, and state health insurance, go back to their country and don't come back except maybe once a year. Now that all benefits are direct deposit or EBT cards, they don't have to show thier face anywhere.
 
TommyG said:
to earn citizenship

I do immigration work, I can tell you that a large percentage of legal permanent residents or green card holders. Have no interest in becoming citizens. I have seen them have status for 40 years and never apply for citizenship. Even a large percentage from some poor countries, come here apply for social security, welfare, and state health insurance, go back to their country and don't come back except maybe once a year. Now that all benefits are direct deposit or EBT cards, they don't have to show thier face anywhere.
Click to expand...

I naturalized after 15 years at 18.
 
JHW said:
thank goodness we have a constitution that prevents that sort of thing from happening here. History has shown time and again that people serve their society most efficiently by acting with personal initiative and in pursuit of personal advancement. Societies built around "finding something for people to do" haven't fared so well, especially the last half century or so.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding? We have many things that the US Constitution was supposed to prevent.
 
JHW said:
History has shown time and again that people serve their society most efficiently by acting with personal initiative and in pursuit of personal advancement.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the veterans and the families of those who served during WWII. From 1940-1947, over 10,000,000 people were inducted in the draft. That's quite a number of people on top of those who volunteered during that time. Are you saying those drafted didn't serve their society?
 
JB1842 said:
Tell that to the veterans and the families of those who served during WWII. From 1940-1947, over 10,000,000 people were inducted in the draft. That's quite a number of people on top of those who volunteered during that time. Are you saying those drafted didn't serve their society?
Click to expand...
Not at all. I'm saying that a society built around the idea of "finding something for people to do to serve the state" is doomed to failure. What you're espousing is akin to the way indian railways operate. I don't think the government in the 1940's went looking for a war to find something for all those people to do.
 
JHW said:
Not at all. I'm saying that a society built around the idea of "finding something for people to do to serve the state" is doomed to failure. What you're espousing is akin to the way indian railways operate. I don't think the government in the 1940's went looking for a war to find something for all those people to do.
Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think it is better for government to find ways for it's people to be productive and make society better, than the system that we have now. The government programs now just give out money and resources to people and ask nothing in return of them. That is what is failing our society right now. Look at FDR's presidency. His New Deal was specifically "finding something for the people to do to serve the state". He provided jobs for the citizens, in return projects that helped society (such as dams, roads, and bridges) were built. The government finding something for the people to do helped get us out of the Great Depression.
 
I dunno - I just don't think the job of the Federal government is to create jobs. I know that a lot of politicians like to say that, but I think the real job of the Fed gubment is to create and maintain a structure where people and business can create their own jobs.

Fed policies and decisions can create a need for something to get done, and private industry can step in - that's one way to create jobs. The other way the Fed government can create jobs is to establish another department of redundancy and hire a ****-load of people.
 
JHW said:
Not at all. I'm saying that a society built around the idea of "finding something for people to do to serve the state" is doomed to failure. What you're espousing is akin to the way indian railways operate. I don't think the government in the 1940's went looking for a war to find something for all those people to do.
Click to expand...

I disagree, other nations use 18-20 year olds pressed into public Service to good effect, it creates an investment in community and teaches an ethic of social responsibility. It's the last part Americans don't seem to like.
 
JB1842 said:
I see your point, but I think it is better for government to find ways for it's people to be productive and make society better, than the system that we have now. The government programs now just give out money and resources to people and ask nothing in return of them. That is what is failing our society right now. Look at FDR's presidency. His New Deal was specifically "finding something for the people to do to serve the state". He provided jobs for the citizens, in return projects that helped society (such as dams, roads, and bridges) were built. The government finding something for the people to do helped get us out of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that in the society Heinlein envisioned, the "citizens" were a minority of the people. The ones with initiative. The other people were members of the society, but did not have the franchise, so they could put up with what the citizens chose, or become a citizen themselves, and then participate.

Now with that sort of society, it's reasonable to expect that there'd be very little "make-work" for the folks who joined up to become citizens. I'd expect those folks would all have a pretty good chance of doing hard work, possibly dangerous. The "find something to do" was there to accomodate disabilities - They'd have to find something for Stevie Wonder besides being a limo driver, for instance. It was not intended to make life easy for the potential citizen.
 
TMetzinger said:
Keep in mind that in the society Heinlein envisioned, the "citizens" were a minority of the people. The ones with initiative. The other people were members of the society, but did not have the franchise, so they could put up with what the citizens chose, or become a citizen themselves, and then participate.

Now with that sort of society, it's reasonable to expect that there'd be very little "make-work" for the folks who joined up to become citizens. I'd expect those folks would all have a pretty good chance of doing hard work, possibly dangerous. The "find something to do" was there to accomodate disabilities - They'd have to find something for Stevie Wonder besides being a limo driver, for instance. It was not intended to make life easy for the potential citizen.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you. I read the book years ago, but don't remember much of it, and was too young to understand the concept of it. Instead of our government just giving away taxpayers money in the form of "entitlements" and in foreign aid, I believe that better efforts could be made to help the people that want to better themselves be able to.
 
JB1842 said:
I believe that better efforts could be made to help the people that want to better themselves be able to.
Click to expand...

You believe that, but do you have more than a belief?

For example - I'd really like to better myself by getting my ATP rating and 5000 hours of flight time. Should the government pay for that? No? Then how can anyone justify denying me, but allowing another "equal" citizen to get a benefit?

The basic trap of this is that people have nearly unlimited wants and the government has limited means. It is impossible to pay for unlimited wants with limited means.

Bur furthermore, to refer back to Starship Troopers - why should someone be entitled to take when they have done nothing to earn it? If you're going to use the governemnt to hand out benefits, shouldn't they go to the citizens who have contributed rather than those who haven't?
 
JB1842 said:
I see your point, but I think it is better for government to find ways for it's people to be productive and make society better, than the system that we have now. The government programs now just give out money and resources to people and ask nothing in return of them. That is what is failing our society right now. Look at FDR's presidency. His New Deal was specifically "finding something for the people to do to serve the state". He provided jobs for the citizens, in return projects that helped society (such as dams, roads, and bridges) were built. The government finding something for the people to do helped get us out of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

What he also did there was create the energy and water infrastructure that allowed us the industrial might to win WWII while supplying weapons to our entire team with the huge resources in spare to feed the Manhattan Project. Without the New Deal era programs the infrastructure would not have been in place in time. Then the petro chemical infrastructure we have now much originated during WWII, basically all built on tax money and given off to private industry and what we know as The Military Industrial Complex grew to proportions that could not just be stepped away from when the material requirements for war ceased the plans for the global consumer society began, and Nixon was in it from the start and found a protege in GHW Bush.
 
bflynn said:
You believe that, but do you have more than a belief?

For example - I'd really like to better myself by getting my ATP rating and 5000 hours of flight time. Should the government pay for that? No? Then how can anyone justify denying me, but allowing another "equal" citizen to get a benefit?

The basic trap of this is that people have nearly unlimited wants and the government has limited means. It is impossible to pay for unlimited wants with limited means.

Bur furthermore, to refer back to Starship Troopers - why should someone be entitled to take when they have done nothing to earn it? If you're going to use the governemnt to hand out benefits, shouldn't they go to the citizens who have contributed rather than those who haven't?
Click to expand...

People need to earn the benefits. You should know that the Post 9/11 GI Bill does pay for 100% of flights costs at a college or Part 141 flight school. So under your reasoning, our veterans, who volunteered to serve our society, don't deserve to earn ratings up to an ATP? I'm not talking about the government just giving out jobs, but them helping the people who take the steps to improve their lives. You can take a horse to water, but you can't force him to drink.
 
RJM62 said:
How would such a constitutional crisis be handled?

-Rich
Click to expand...

Congress set the date, so I assume congress could change it.

A uniform date for choosing presidential electors was instituted by the Congress in 1845. Many theories have been advanced as to why the Congress settled on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The actual reasons, as shown in records of Congressional debate on the bill in December 1844, were fairly prosaic. The bill initially set the national day for choosing presidential electors on "the first Tuesday in November," in years divisible by four (1848, 1852, etc.). But it was pointed out that in some years the period between the first Tuesday in November and the first Wednesday in December (when the electors met in their state capitals to vote) would be more than 34 days, in violation of the existing Electoral College law. So, the bill was amended to move the national date for choosing presidential electors forward to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, a date scheme already used in the state of New York.
 
Interesting. Did the 1845 law also specify a vote of the people to select the electors, or was that left up to the state legislatures to decide?
 
Palmpilot said:
Interesting. Did the 1845 law also specify a vote of the people to select the electors, or was that left up to the state legislatures to decide?
Click to expand...

Since the South Carolina state legislature was choosing that state's presidential electors in 1860, the 1845 law obviously still left the manner of the choosing to the states. So it should still be the case today - though states appear to have adopted semi-uniform mechanisms:

http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_choosing.php
 
Palmpilot said:
...The election is over a week away though, so it seems unlikely that this storm would interfere with it.
Click to expand...

Hearing about the flooding of the subways in NYC, I'm not so sure now!

I doubt that Congress would be motivated to authorize a delay, however.
 
Palmpilot said:
Hearing about the flooding of the subways in NYC, I'm not so sure now!

I doubt that Congress would be motivated to authorize a delay, however.
Click to expand...

What, the electoral college representatives can't just make up whatever vote they want to, and wade to one of the few remaining operable pay phones? ;)

First world problems. Sheesh. :)
 
Why do New Yorkers and New Jerseyites need to vote anyhow? We already know where those electoral college votes are going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top