Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Term Limits, yep. Welcome to the other side. I've taken many hits here over the years for even bringing up the subject.
Its about the only thing left that we haven't tried in terms of dealing with Congress.
but before term limits I'd like to first get the House districts aligned by simple geography regardless of race/income/political affiliation, and all campaign contributions made public, including the so-called PACs and Super-PACs, also no money from outside the candidates district
These exectutive orders seem to be getting more and more used. But I did see a list of past Presidents and as far as numbers go Obama wasn't the most/least in the number issued. The people are divided, the House is gerrymandered to the point that only the far left/right have seats and they don't agree on anything and don't have the courage to take a stand so they pass it on to the President and shrink from their responsibility. Then we (the people) cheeer/boo the President. Which brings me to "term limits". I never cared for term limits because if the people want to be represented by a certain person he/she should be allowed to run for that office. But what we have now is career politicians whose only interest is their career. Also the political parties punish members of congress if they don't vote the party line by way of cutting cash from the DNC/RNC and not let them serve on committees which keep them from high profile camera time to gain attention from the voters back home.
So, what now? Talk among yourselves I'm going to make some more coffee
Term Limits, yep. Welcome to the other side. I've taken many hits here over the years for even bringing up the subject.
Its about the only thing left that we haven't tried in terms of dealing with Congress.
These exectutive orders seem to be getting more and more used. But I did see a list of past Presidents and as far as numbers go Obama wasn't the most/least in the number issued. The people are divided, the House is gerrymandered to the point that only the far left/right have seats and they don't agree on anything and don't have the courage to take a stand so they pass it on to the President and shrink from their responsibility. Then we (the people) cheeer/boo the President. Which brings me to "term limits". I never cared for term limits because if the people want to be represented by a certain person he/she should be allowed to run for that office. But what we have now is career politicians whose only interest is their career. Also the political parties punish members of congress if they don't vote the party line by way of cutting cash from the DNC/RNC and not let them serve on committees which keep them from high profile camera time to gain attention from the voters back home.
So, what now? Talk among yourselves I'm going to make some more coffee
Do you think their needs and concerns should be considered by those making policy and governing?
I ask because I'm seeing this as a developing line of thought. I think all people in the nation deserve representation and consideration. A lot of people I know don't think that is so. It extends beyond those who don't vote to those who voted for any candidate who didn't win.
This is beyond the basics of having a mandate, or setting basic policy direction. A lot of people (and Trump both appears to espouse this view and encourages it in his supporters), seem to really think it's not important to represent those who did not support them. I think this is contrary to our ideals, but I haven't had a candidate of my choosing win in decades, so I may just be overly sensitive about it.
There's a whole lot in that simple little question. It might conflate representation with advocacy.
In regards to winning voters and losing voters, its the winners turn to make the decisions and the losers to wait their turn again or find ways to work with the winners. Currently, the losers choose not to work with the winners. And it appears that will go on for the next 2 years until the next mid terms. With the losers choosing to sit out the next two years, they get what they get. Those who don't vote always get what they get.
Now in terms of the disabled and mentally ill, we as a society must advocate for them on their behalf, as a part of altruism. And let charity do its thing. Hard to answer in more than broadbrush expressions without feedback.
Really dude? You bitch when I respond too fast, You bitch when I respond too slow, you bitch when I don't respond at all. There are no rules on when/where/how often I respond to you. Get used to it, or don't, not my concern. If it bothers you, please wait patiently for my next response which I'll be working on diligently...
Sorry, you asked for it ... (this is a music site an all ...)
In politics, representation describes how some individuals stand in for others or a group of others, for a certain time period. Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected officials nominally speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights; however, some democracies have extended this right further.
Is it just me or is representation solely dependent upon voting as defined above ?
Really dude? You bitch when I respond too fast, You bitch when I respond too slow, you bitch when I don't respond at all. There are no rules on when/where/how often I respond to you. Get used to it, or don't, not my concern. If it bothers you, please wait patiently for my next response which I'll be working on diligently...
Do you think their needs and concerns should be considered by those making policy and governing?
I ask because I'm seeing this as a developing line of thought. I think all people in the nation deserve representation and consideration. A lot of people I know don't think that is so. It extends beyond those who don't vote to those who voted for any candidate who didn't win.
This is beyond the basics of having a mandate, or setting basic policy direction. A lot of people (and Trump both appears to espouse this view and encourages it in his supporters), seem to really think it's not important to represent those who did not support them. I think this is contrary to our ideals, but I haven't had a candidate of my choosing win in decades, so I may just be overly sensitive about it.
In politics, representation describes how some individuals stand in for others or a group of others, for a certain time period. Representation usually refers to representative democracies, where elected officials nominally speak for their constituents in the legislature. Generally, only citizens are granted representation in the government in the form of voting rights; however, some democracies have extended this right further.
Is it just me or is representation solely dependent upon voting as defined above ?
Any poll taken consistently with the same methods over time has meaning as it relates to a trend. That is one criteria for measuring a trend.
Who cares what those who won't vote think ? They aren't doing anything about their thoughts.
If you want an extended discussion about public polls during February, you're gonna have to find someone else to respond. It is way too early to get into opinion polls about Trump and the direction of the country and frankly I don't think recent polls on either subject accurately reflect a strong understanding of the complete disarray of Trump's administration.
Quickly, then:
Your first two sentences don't take into account whether that poll is accurate. You can poll people the same way and apply the same statistical methods to the raw data over and over again but if your results aren't accurate, they aren't worthwhile.
I leave it to you to sort through the opinions of various professional polling and news organizations as to the merits of Rasmussen Reports. Have a good evening. From September 2012: Rasmussen: The GOP’s cure for the common poll
From early 2010: Is Rasmussen Reports Biased? What Rasmussen has had is a “house effect”. So far in the 2010 cycle, their polling has consistently and predictably shown better results for Republican candidates than other polling firms have. But such house effects can emerge from legitimate differences of opinion about how to model the electorate.
Rasmussen’s election polling has tended to be quite accurate in the past. Nor, incidentally, has their election polling has a particularly strong house effect in the past; it is something new to the 2010 cycle. But that’s OK; each election cycle features different dynamics in terms of turnout and motivation, and what might be smart assumptions in one cycle won’t necessarily carry over to the next.
Now, what you do need to be aware of is that Rasmussen’s opinion is one among many. They might turn out to be right — but so might all of the other pollsters who have a different opinion about the electorate. If you’re running a news organization and you tend to cite Rasmussen’s polls disproportionately, it probably means that you are biased — it does not necessarily mean that Rasmussen is biased.
"Who cares what those who won't vote think ? They aren't doing anything about their thoughts."
Note the excerpt below from the FiveThirtyEight.com, which I am re-posting. Note the bold-faced sentence (emphasis mine). There's no guarantee that the adults who don't normally vote will not vote in 2018. See also the bolded sentence above: "...each election cycle features different dynamics in terms of turnout and motivation, and what might be smart assumptions in one cycle won’t necessarily carry over to the next."
While there can be good reasons for using polls of voters as opposed to those of all adults, however, I’d be wary of making too much about the difference between registered-voter and likely-voter polls. At this early stage, it’s hard to predict what the likely voter electorate will look like in 2018. Midterm voters are typically older and whiter than registered voters overall, which should help Republicans. But they’re also better-educated, which should help Democrats. Furthermore, the “enthusiasm gap” can vary quite a bit from election to election, although it usually favors the opposition party in the midterms (i.e., Democrats in 2018).
The differences between these various types of polls may also narrow as we collect more data. So far, the only pollsters surveying likely voters are Rasmussen Reports and Zogby, and they aren’t very good pollsters. And the only pollsters we could find releasing numbers among both all adults and registered voters — which provides for the most direct comparison between those groups — are YouGov and Pew Research. YouGov’s poll showed Trump’s approval rating lower among all adults than among registered voters, but his disapproval rating was lower also. That’s a fairly typical pattern: Adults who aren’t registered to vote are often politically disengaged and may have indifferent views toward Trump.
Any poll taken consistently with the same methods over time has meaning as it relates to a trend. That is one criteria for measuring a trend.
Who cares what those who won't vote think ? They aren't doing anything about their thoughts.
