Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-19-2010, 05:05 PM
 
Location: OKLAHOMA
1,789 posts, read 4,321,471 times
Reputation: 1032

Advertisements

Just face it all senators do what their party head tells them not We the people voted them it. So another 2 years of Pelosi is the way most of you want. I can't stand either party but she is dangerous. Believe me it doesn't matter what Joe Miller believes in he'll do what he is told just like the dem will do what obama/pelosi/reid says even if it means VOTING FOR BILLS THEY NEVER READ.

 
Old 09-19-2010, 05:46 PM
 
941 posts, read 1,779,190 times
Reputation: 768
Ah but there is a difference between philosophy and making a promise to act in certain ways. We gain an insight into what someone will do when presented with a chance to vote in a certain direction by what they espouse during the time they are campaigning for the office. Miller has made his philosophical bent toward the Constitution as an absolute document which can only be interpreted as he sees the issue. Other politicians have taken a different philosophical approach and in some ways the Bill Of Rights is a reflection of that philosophical bent by past politicians.

There have been amendments that dealt with slavery, prohibition, number of terms a President can serve, the right of women to vote, and other philosophical positions politicians in the past have taken. It just so happens I agree with the ones I have listed but there are others that I have a philosophical interest in seeing come to a vote for or against.

One is a women's right to say what she is allowed to do with her body. That is a very contentious philosophical area which hasn't been solved at this time. Up until recently the issue has been dominated by old men who didn't have a women's perspective on the issue of who made the decision in place of the actual party involved. Now there are women active in politics and they are slowly approaching a position of equality with men and maybe in the future that issue will be resolved under the Constitution. Now the Constitution says nothing about when life begins, when a woman can say what she wants to happen within her body, or under what circumstances she is allowed to make that decision. So that is an open issue that is still being debated.

When a candidate for President makes a promise that will, by the Constitution, require an action by the legislative bodies is the candidate saying if he is elected the issue will be settled? The President's ability to change the law is limited by his ability to sign or veto a potential law or appoint Supreme Court Justices who share the view he made his promise about. Both of those powers are limited by the actions that can be taken by the other two branches of government. The individual Senator's ability is limited by his single vote and the necessity to get a veto proof majority that will follow his philosophical outlook to fulfill the promise. So promises mean very little until the power of the people elect sufficient numbers of politicians who share a common philosophical view and who are willing to vote for that view.

So in Alaska the choice is made based on how the voter perceive a candidates ability to make his position known to the electorate who by their cumulative votes say what direction they wish the individual candidate to carry that position into action. So if Miller's views mostly match your views then you vote for what appeals to you. Some people vote their pocketbook which is essentially how much would you help me financially? Others will vote for an ideology which says the vote is for someone who believes as they perceive their interest. They are many possibilities for a voter among which they have to make a selection of their choice. Perhaps to some people two candidates might each have a favorable position to an individual voter but they are on different issues. How do you chose the correct one to vote for and conversely vote against the other?

Lisa is a known to most voters, Miller is perceived as an extremist by virtue of his stand on Constitutional issues and in many respects Mac is an unknown. It might be easier to make a choice between any two but when presented with three the reasons change greatly and it requires more thought to make a choice. That is where the philosophical views of the candidates comes into play. Who best suits your thoughts about the future? Will your candidate, of choice, be best for you, the Country, the State, or your religious or ideological beliefs or possibly another factor? End with just get out and vote. Last time 34% of the electorate voted. That's one out of three. It is all called Civics, which is the study of how government works.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 06:25 PM
 
24,323 posts, read 26,701,005 times
Reputation: 19745
I don't understand the whole go out and vote message.

I'd rather have only 5% of the population vote with 99% of them having done their research vs 99% of the population vote with only 5% of them having done their research.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,243 posts, read 36,896,329 times
Reputation: 16373
Quote:
Originally Posted by richelles View Post
Ah but there is a difference between philosophy and making a promise to act in certain ways. We gain an insight into what someone will do when presented with a chance to vote in a certain direction by what they espouse during the time they are campaigning for the office. Miller has made his philosophical bent toward the Constitution as an absolute document which can only be interpreted as he sees the issue. Other politicians have taken a different philosophical approach and in some ways the Bill Of Rights is a reflection of that philosophical bent by past politicians.

There have been amendments that dealt with slavery, prohibition, number of terms a President can serve, the right of women to vote, and other philosophical positions politicians in the past have taken. It just so happens I agree with the ones I have listed but there are others that I have a philosophical interest in seeing come to a vote for or against.

One is a women's right to say what she is allowed to do with her body. That is a very contentious philosophical area which hasn't been solved at this time. Up until recently the issue has been dominated by old men who didn't have a women's perspective on the issue of who made the decision in place of the actual party involved. Now there are women active in politics and they are slowly approaching a position of equality with men and maybe in the future that issue will be resolved under the Constitution. Now the Constitution says nothing about when life begins, when a woman can say what she wants to happen within her body, or under what circumstances she is allowed to make that decision. So that is an open issue that is still being debated.

When a candidate for President makes a promise that will, by the Constitution, require an action by the legislative bodies is the candidate saying if he is elected the issue will be settled? The President's ability to change the law is limited by his ability to sign or veto a potential law or appoint Supreme Court Justices who share the view he made his promise about. Both of those powers are limited by the actions that can be taken by the other two branches of government. The individual Senator's ability is limited by his single vote and the necessity to get a veto proof majority that will follow his philosophical outlook to fulfill the promise. So promises mean very little until the power of the people elect sufficient numbers of politicians who share a common philosophical view and who are willing to vote for that view.

So in Alaska the choice is made based on how the voter perceive a candidates ability to make his position known to the electorate who by their cumulative votes say what direction they wish the individual candidate to carry that position into action. So if Miller's views mostly match your views then you vote for what appeals to you. Some people vote their pocketbook which is essentially how much would you help me financially? Others will vote for an ideology which says the vote is for someone who believes as they perceive their interest. They are many possibilities for a voter among which they have to make a selection of their choice. Perhaps to some people two candidates might each have a favorable position to an individual voter but they are on different issues. How do you chose the correct one to vote for and conversely vote against the other?

Lisa is a known to most voters, Miller is perceived as an extremist by virtue of his stand on Constitutional issues and in many respects Mac is an unknown. It might be easier to make a choice between any two but when presented with three the reasons change greatly and it requires more thought to make a choice. That is where the philosophical views of the candidates comes into play. Who best suits your thoughts about the future? Will your candidate, of choice, be best for you, the Country, the State, or your religious or ideological beliefs or possibly another factor? End with just get out and vote. Last time 34% of the electorate voted. That's one out of three. It is all called Civics, which is the study of how government works.
And that's where we differ. As I approach old age and have seen through the years how our nation has pulled away from Constitutional principles and what it brings, I lean toward Miller's ideas. At least to me this is the first indicator of Miller's path toward the future, and one that I like: his adherence to the Constitution. Keep in mind that The Founding Fathers weren't favorably perceived by the English, so for Miller to be perceived as being against the grain in the wood isn't necessarily bad.

Perhaps the most important thing for any person is the be able to choose freely from two or more candidates without being bullied or ridiculed by those who have a different view of such candidate. For example, when Lisa ran against Miller and lost, that was because a majority of voters agreed more with Miller than Lisa. But not for a moment that means that this majority is any wackiest than the other side, since today-with all the political adds-nobody is close enough to any of the candidates to know the person intimately.

It means that one has to decided on one's perceptions, since that's all there is there for one to decide. Perceptions, of course, aren't necessarily the truth, so there is not telling what the future will hold in relation to any candidate. With time, Miller will have not choice but to explain what he is talking about, and so the other candidates.

But the bottom line is that it's up to that majority of Republican and other voters to decided how good or bad Miller is, not the Democrats or others who aren't voting for him. If Miller wins the upcoming elections, it does not mean that the people who put in in charge are "wacky," at least not any more than the Democrats that would put their candidate in office-should he win. While I disagreed with the voters who put Obama in office, it does not mean that they are wacky just the same. All it means that we "Americans" have the freedom to choose and vote for the candidate we believe is the best at the moment.

Last edited by RayinAK; 09-19-2010 at 08:45 PM..
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,604,363 times
Reputation: 1836
Default Whacko see, whacko do...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
And that's where we differ. As I approach old age and have seen through the years how our nation has pulled away from Constitutional principles and what it brings, I lean toward Miller's ideas. At least to me this is the first indicator of Miller's path toward the future, and one that I like, is his adherence to the Constitution.

Perhaps the most important thing for any person is the be able to choose freely from two or more candidates without being bullied or ridiculed by those who have a different view of such candidate. For example, when Lisa ran against Miller and lost, that was because a majority of voters agreed more with Miller than Lisa. But not for a moment that means that this majority is any wackiest than the other side, since today-with all the political adds-nobody is intimate or close enough with any of the candidates to know the person intimately.

It means that one has to decided on one's perceptions, since that's all there is there for one to decide. Perceptions, of course, aren't necessarily the truth, so there is not telling what the future will hold in relation to any candidate. With time, Miller will have not choice but to explain what he is talking about, and so the other candidates.

But the bottom line is that it's up to that majority of Republican and other voters to decided how good or bad Miller is, not the Democrats or others who aren't voting for him. If Miller wins the upcoming elections, it does not mean that the people who put in in charge are "wacky," at least not any more than the Democrats that would put their candidate in office-should he win. While I disagreed with the voter who put Obama in office, it does not mean that they are wacky just the same. All it means that we "Americans" have the freedom to choose.
The bottom line Ray, is that Miller is a whack job who hasn't got a clue about what the Constitution is, what it means, or how it works.

And neither do you.
 
Old 09-19-2010, 08:47 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
20,243 posts, read 36,896,329 times
Reputation: 16373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
The bottom line Ray, is that Miller is a whack job who hasn't got a clue about what the Constitution is, what it means, or how it works.

And neither do you.
The bottom line, Floyd, is that opinions are like anuses: every body has one, except that you are quite pushy about it, and this makes it almost impossible to have a sane dialog with you. Everything has to be an argument?
 
Old 09-19-2010, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, California
1,255 posts, read 2,250,236 times
Reputation: 756
Once again Krugman is bang on target -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/op...rugman.html?hp
 
Old 09-20-2010, 01:03 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,604,363 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayinAK View Post
The bottom line, Floyd, is that opinions are like anuses: every body has one, except that you are quite pushy about it, and this makes it almost impossible to have a sane dialog with you. Everything has to be an argument?
That doesn't change the bottom line Ray, and you can't excuse it with rationalization about other people.

The fact is that Joe Miller is a whack job and doesn't have any understanding of either the Constitution or the political system in this country.

The fact is that neither do you.

That's not the anus that everyone has. Just you, Miller, and the Right Wingnut movement.
 
Old 09-20-2010, 02:16 AM
 
Location: Palmer
2,519 posts, read 6,992,339 times
Reputation: 1395
Interesting blog on Murkowski's chances. He thinks she can win. I don't agree with him but it's still interesting. More on Murkowski's Math - NYTimes.com
 
Old 09-20-2010, 11:02 AM
 
Location: 112 Ocean Avenue
5,706 posts, read 9,574,571 times
Reputation: 8932
Quote:
Originally Posted by notreesininceland View Post
Once again Krugman is bang on target -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/op...rugman.html?hp
And Joe Miller believes unemployment benefits are unconstitutional, welfare should be eliminated, health care (medicaid) should take a hike, but the Bush tax cuts for the rich should stay.

The guy sure sounds like an Alaskan elitist to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Alaska

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top