Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Half of Canadians too ignorant to be Canadian

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    We get a new "timing belt" every 4 years so its all good.
    But only because you know a bit about the inner workings!!

    Time to stop playing mr dumb with us. We know damn well you know more than you're letting on. You're trying that well known political trick of attempting to keep our expectations low. Won't work here sqauckee :roll:

    Comment


    • #32
      What's a timing belt?

      Seriously, I've no idea, nor much of an interest in knowing. I take my car in for a check up at least once a year and if I need a new timing belt, my guy tells me and I tell him to do it. Ditto with everything else under the hood.

      So I'm with SQUACKEE on this one. Even if he's kidding, I'm not.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by tandfman
        So I'm with SQUACKEE on this one. Even if he's kidding, I'm not.
        Well maybe the analogy sucks. Why do you take it to the mechanic? Presumably because you know the engine needs someone to look after it. Who is your mechanic in the political analogy?

        Surely, the mechanic is not the electorate?! :shock: If so, what is to stop the mechanic changing your transmission every four years too? After all, that is what Transmission Inc. would recommend.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Daisy
          Time to stop playing mr dumb with us. We know damn well you know more than you're letting on. Won't work here squackee :roll:
          i thought you already knew that about him daisy ?

          after all, he does state his interests as :

          HIGH,REALLY HIGH MATH

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Daisy
            Originally posted by tandfman
            So I'm with SQUACKEE on this one. Even if he's kidding, I'm not.
            Well maybe the analogy sucks. Why do you take it to the mechanic? Presumably because you know the engine needs someone to look after it. Who is your mechanic in the political analogy?
            That is largely what the New Yorker article (and the book it reviews) are all about.

            I personally lfeel an obligation to have at least some of the knowledge that I think I need to exercise my franchise responsibly. I recognize that I know more than most voters, and less than some. But I'd never entrust my vote to an expert the way I do my car.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by tandfman
              But I'd never entrust my vote to an expert the way I do my car.
              Technically that is what we do when we elect Presidents, because we are really voting for the ‘experts’ in the Electoral College. And it wasn’t until 1913 that we actually voted for Senators. Prior to that the ‘experts’ in the various state legislatures had the privilege.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by bad hammy
                Originally posted by tandfman
                But I'd never entrust my vote to an expert the way I do my car.
                Technically that is what we do when we elect Presidents, because we are really voting for the ‘experts’ in the Electoral College.
                Except that they don't give us any expert advice--we tell them what to do and expect them to do it. I'd never tell my mechanic what to do with my car without asking him first what he thinks should be done. That's a relationship I don't have with the electors in my state.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by tandfman
                  Originally posted by bad hammy
                  Originally posted by tandfman
                  But I'd never entrust my vote to an expert the way I do my car.
                  Technically that is what we do when we elect Presidents, because we are really voting for the ‘experts’ in the Electoral College.
                  Except that they don't give us any expert advice--we tell them what to do and expect them to do it.
                  They are actually free to vote however they want, regardless of our expectations.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    [quote=bad hammy]
                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    Originally posted by "bad hammy":3eira6dq
                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    But I'd never entrust my vote to an expert the way I do my car.
                    Technically that is what we do when we elect Presidents, because we are really voting for the ‘experts’ in the Electoral College.
                    Except that they don't give us any expert advice--we tell them what to do and expect them to do it.
                    They are actually free to vote however they want, regardless of our expectations.[/quote:3eira6dq]
                    Technically true but in practice it rarely happens. What if all the candidates are so corrupt to be unvotable (hypothetical scenario). Could they vote for a write-in type candidate? (peoples choice type of thing)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Daisy
                      What if all the candidates are so corrupt to be unvotable . . . .
                      You mean like happens in every election??? :lol:

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by bad hammy
                        Originally posted by Daisy
                        What if all the candidates are so corrupt to be unvotable . . . .
                        You mean like happens in every election??? :lol:
                        Exactly. Can they just discard them all and vote for bad hammy? i.e. someone who does not want the job.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          Originally posted by bad hammy
                          Originally posted by Daisy
                          What if all the candidates are so corrupt to be unvotable . . . .
                          You mean like happens in every election??? :lol:
                          Exactly. Can they just discard them all and vote for bad hammy? i.e. someone who does not want the job.
                          You are getting into hypotheticals that I am not sure are covered by the rules. Can they all vote for someone who did not run? Probably. And someone who does not want the job can decline/resign. (Not sure 'declines' are in the rules, but resigns obviously are.)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Of the 538 electorial votes 27states(DC is counted as a state in this context)
                            require, by law or pledge ,the electors to follow the popular vote. They account for 281 votes. The other 24 account for 257 votes that can swing. Non compliance is often a felony.

                            source
                            http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... /laws.html

                            an interesting FAQ page:
                            http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... e/faq.html
                            Tom Hyland:
                            "squack and wineturtle get it"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Coincidentally, an article in my paper about a columnist looking at new U.S. test:

                              http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                QED

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X