California's next Governor

[Dumbass 0]

These are just some of the 135 candidates running in California's recall election.  There was also a 100-year old woman who paid the $3,500 candidate fee but couldn't get the 65 signitures required to put her on the ballot.

 

And to think some people say politics is boring.

[Images 0]

i'm all in favour of more thong wearing but you just can't say no to arnie!

[Nemesis 0]

ummmmm isn't this a little mature with this chatroom for there are plenty of little ones who frequent this room and talking about a "porn star" might be a little graphic. Anywho just to show you when you joke around with dumb hollywood stars saying you should run for Governer they don't always take it as a joke :)

[LoAmi 0]

they don't always take it as a joke :)

Didn't the last one of those become president?

 

:: goes out to rent "Bedtime for Bonzo" ::

[Vex Xiang 0]

I think its a very interesting event...and I'd vote for Arnold if he made any good points (he might, though he has yet to).

 

But do you know why Davis is a bad governor? Do you know specific reasons that warrant an unprecedented recall?

 

The people of CA voted for him...they're stuck with him until his term ends. Thats how our system works. Unless he's found doing something illegal, I don't see why this recall is being done. We cant vote him out just because we don't like him or because he didnt fullfill all his promises  :)

 

Also...did you know that the entire recall was started by a hopeful candidate who paid 3 million dollars of his own money to petition for his removal...so that he could get the opportunity to run?

[STSF StarDust 0]

There is legislation in place that allows for the recall.. hence why there has been one. He can be recalled cause we don't like him, as long as all the paperwork is done right, etc, etc

 

As to the fact that he was voted in office, it was a very close vote, he won by a narrow margin, and thats with less than 50% of registered voters bothering to turn out after a very nasty race that left the voting public to choose between someone incompetent or a crook.

 

I am more amazed by the fact that the apathetic voting public got enough gumption up to sign the recall petition.. I never expected it to go through. Will I vote for Arnie? Most likely. So far I haven't seen another candidate that I think feels strongly enough about the office with having ulterior motives. I know that Arnie has been a very active participant in the Amerincan voting system since becoming a citizen. I am a registered Libertarian, but only vote that way at the local level, until I have a better chance of making that vote count. (I can discuss voting strategy/reasoning and party politics somewhere else!)

[Vex Xiang 0]

As to the fact that he was voted in office, it was a very close vote, he won by a narrow margin, and thats with less than 50% of registered voters bothering to turn out after a very nasty race that left the voting public to choose between someone incompetent or a crook.

 

So did the Bush. I didnt vote for him, but I wouldn't support a recall of him.

 

I dont agree with your "less than 50%" of the registered voters turning out to be significant. As I understand it, only 11% of US registered voters bother to vote in elections.

[Nemesis 0]

As to the fact that he was voted in office, it was a very close vote, he won by a narrow margin, and thats with less than 50% of registered voters bothering to turn out after a very nasty race that left the voting public to choose between someone incompetent or a crook.

Well the main problem with politics is not that the politions are incompetent or a crook its because the average person in the 1st world society is far to idealistic and think everything can be done in 10secs with a signing of a paper here and a paper there. Well its not Politics are very dificult and you can not please everyone right away you need to make tax increases to pay off debt and lower some wages and people will get hurt and its too bad but if they don't do those things everyone will get hurt horribly and the country will go broke. The americans (not meaning to insult anyone here) have enough money for a working health care system like the one in Canada as well as lowering umemployments rates if they lowered the miltary budget. Now I know you are probably saying now that leaves us vulerable and such but think of it this way if your military was smaller you would have less terrorist attacks because you would have less interference in 3rd world countries. Now you should help politions with working plans instead of blaming them for doing stuff you voted them in there tell them what you want. One more thing why am I talking politics on STSF isnt that not allowed?

[Dumbass 0]

The people of CA voted for him...they're stuck with him until his term ends... We cant vote him out just because we don't like him or because he didnt fullfill all his promises  :D

 

Also...did you know that the entire recall was started by a hopeful candidate who paid 3 million dollars of his own money to petition for his removal...so that he could get the opportunity to run?

Well, the California Constitution says we can.  

 

And I don't know why people always cry foul when politicians spend their own money.  I'd rather they spend their money than mine.

[Dumbass 0]

they don't always take it as a joke :D

Didn't the last one of those become president?

 

:: goes out to rent "Bedtime for Bonzo" ::

Actually, entertainers running for political office is not new.  Look at these examples:

 

Mayor Clint Eastwood

Mayor / Congressman Sony Bono

Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura

Governor / President Ronald Reagan

 

That's not all.  Howard Stern ran for Governor of New York, and Jerry Springer, once the Mayor of Cincinnati, is considering running for Senator.

 

Of course I'd love to see the candidates debate:

 

Arnold:  Mr. Coleman, do you have a platform?

Gary:  Of course I do!  It's the only way I can see over the podium!

[Dumbass 0]

I dont agree with your "less than 50%" of the registered voters turning out to be significant. As I understand it, only 11% of US registered voters bother to vote in elections.

What I think he meant was that Davis received less than 50% of the total votes cast.

[Travis Kroells 0]

Is it wrong that Im the only one that voted for the porn star?

[Travis Kroells 0]

Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura

Hey, I spent four years under Jesse's reign, and it wasnt too bad.  Good...but not great...it's still fun to see some one like that in office...as long as it doesnt affect you.

[Dumbass 0]

Governor Jesse "The Body" Ventura

Hey, I spent four years under Jesse's reign, and it wasnt too bad.  Good...but not great...it's still fun to see some one like that in office...as long as it doesnt affect you.

I loved the way he pronounces the state's name:  Minn-ness-SOUGH-dah.

 

Plus he made Ross Perot look like an @$$.  That's always fun to see.

[Dumbass 0]

Is it wrong that Im the only one that voted for the porn star?

I'm surprised no one voted for the thong lady yet.  She's a cutie!

[AndrewLyon 0]

I'd love to see Arnold in office, the man does have everything in the right place, inculding a good head.

[Images 0]

and if he ever encounters a dispute in the local councils he can kick down the door holding a minigun and just say "You Vill Play nice now"   :D

[FredM 0]

I dont agree with your "less than 50%" of the registered voters turning out to be significant. As I understand it, only 11% of US registered voters bother to vote in elections.

Hey there,

 

A few things. First, please make sure this conversation remains on topic and does not turn into a campaign of personal attacks against others, their views, etc..

 

Second, I do not see what the issue with a recall is. Since you vote a person in, should you not have the ability to vote that person out? I think the logical answer to that is quite simply, within reason, yes.

 

Third, going off of memory, in preliminary elections less than 15% of those available to vote do so. Within main elections, normally 50% or less of the general population votes. Since many cannot name the three branchs of the government, this may not be a bad thing.

 

So, in the end, normally between 35% and 50% of the general population will be involved in the election process. What I find somewhat insulting is that the remaining 50% will then see to it that their right to free speech (aka: complain) is heard.

 

Fourth, Nemesis, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree. Much of Europe, Canada and many other countries have had the luxury over the last 50 years of focusing on social programs instead of the military. Why? Because they knew the United States was there to protect them. Had the United States not had such a massive military presence during the Cold War, Europe and other areas (Canada included) would have been forced to maintain large operating military forces.

 

Those forces that existed did not need to be the size of the U.S. military. Their goal was to, basically, "hold out until help arrives." Nothing more, nothing less. They were not prepared or able to fight a prolonged major conflict. They never planned to. The idea was to survive long enough for the Allied powers with real military might (aka: United States) to arrive.

 

In the meantime, many "developed nations" put their money into social programs. This has resulted in places such as Germany having an income tax around 68%, which provides almost every service you could imagine.

 

As for involvement in third world countries, I love how most folks seem to forget that the largest financial contributor to reconstruction/rebuilding/assistance programs in the third world is the United States. Heaven forbid we try to stop people from having another Holocaust. How dare we try to stop someone from murdering millions of his own people.

 

There's a saying I think of...."silence is acceptance."

 

I'd rather not be known as the country that was silent.

[Images 0]

hmmm i dunno i'm a michael moorite personally ::quickly exits the room and locks the door::   :D

[Vex Xiang 0]

I agree Fred. Lets keep this to a mature, friendly discussion. I think everyone's doing a fantastic job so far.

[Vex Xiang 0]

So, in the end, normally between 35% and 50% of the general population will be involved in the election process. What I find somewhat insulting is that the remaining 50% will then see to it that their right to free speech (aka: complain) is heard.

 

What are the sources of these 35% or 50% stats? That seems like an aweful lot of voters that I don't think turn out. I have a 2003 political science textbook sitting in front of me that says 11%. ::shrug:: But stats are pretty trivial so lets move on...

 

As for involvement in third world countries, I love how most folks seem to forget that the largest financial contributor to reconstruction/rebuilding/assistance programs in the third world is the United States.

 

Now I don't really want to get into a lengthy discussion about this, but since its with Fred I think its safe. :D

 

I love US involvement in foreign affairs when it comes down to voluntary assistance. Aiding in programs to help people in other countries is a good thing...but only when you base most of its support off their economy, using their labor, etc. We are the largest financial contributor...and its horrible IMHO (have you seen the deficit lately?). We just don't spend enough funds on the local level to justify how much we spend on foreign programs. (I dont have rough figures from the last years budget, but maybe someone does and could post them?)

 

Now I know its impossible to give every homeless person a job, or parents to every orphan...but why do firemen and policemen have to stand on streetcorners collecting money because their departments dont get enough funds from the govt? Why do teachers have to buy computers themselves for their schools so their children can use them in the classroom? I just think the "balance" of financial funding isn't correct.

 

How dare we try to stop someone from murdering millions of his own people.

 

Just to clarify...I watched the war very carefully. I watched the news leading up to it, during it, and after it. 24/7 when I was watching TV, it was news, and when I drove around, I listened to the news. I watched every presidential announcement he made. We didn't go to war to remove a murderer...we went there to eliminate an immediate threat of WMD against the US. We went after Saddam because he was known to be holding terrorists within his borders and weapons that those terrorists could use.

 

The only mention from the US Govt or the news regarding removing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqi people occured after the war was almost over.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

Responding to Xiang....

 

What are the sources of these 35% or 50% stats? That seems like an aweful lot of voters that I don't think turn out. I have a 2003 political science textbook sitting in front of me that says 11%. ::shrug:: But stats are pretty trivial so lets move on...

My figures are coming from the Federal Election Commission figures for the 2000 Presidential Election. According to those numbers, 76% of those able to vote are registered to do so. Of those registered, 65.5% voted in the last major election. Looking overall, for all able to vote (even if not registered), 51.3% of the U.S. population participated in the 2000 Presidential Election. For more info, see http://www.fec.gov/pages/2000turnout/reg&to00.htm.

 

We are the largest financial contributor...and its horrible IMHO (have you seen the deficit lately?).

The deficit, in numbers, is the largest it's been. However, by percentage of the total U.S. GDP, it's actually one of the smallest we've seen in the last twenty years or so. As a result, putting into account monetary inflation, it's actually not that big compared to others. Besides, what do you think the fallout would be if we just stopped assisting other countries? Eventually it would get back to us, either via armed conflicts or political backlash.

 

The only mention from the US Govt or the news regarding removing Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqi people occured after the war was almost over.

Have to disagree here. Though WMDs were talked about quite extensivle, other reasons were as well. I give two quick examples. On September 12, 2002, the President gave a speech to the United Nations.  President Bush mentions weapons of mass destruction briefly, and then cites Iraq's support for terrorism, its persecution of civilians, its failure to obey Security Council resolutions, "release or account for all Gulf War personnel," return the remains and return stolen property, "accept liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait and fully cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as required by Security Council resolutions."

 

On March 17, 2003...during the final ultimatum to Saddam Hussein he said "If the Iraqi regime wishes peace it will immediately end all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept UN administration of funds from that program to ensure that the money is used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people. If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq, and it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis."

 

So...again...have to disagree. These are just two quick examples I could find and I know there are many, many more. If people choose to remember only the WMD reason, that's their choice. But there were indeed other reasons and justifications for getting involved. :D

[Vex Xiang 0]

My figures are coming from the Federal Election Commission figures for the 2000 Presidential Election.

 

Thanks for the info, Fred! My book is actually referring to total registered voters voting in all elections, including local. It does say also that vastly more people vote in presidential elections than anything else.

 

The deficit, in numbers, is the largest it's been. However, by percentage of the total U.S. GDP, it's actually one of the smallest we've seen in the last twenty years or so. As a result, putting into account monetary inflation, it's actually not that big compared to others. Besides, what do you think the fallout would be if we just stopped assisting other countries? Eventually it would get back to us, either via armed conflicts or political backlash.

 

The deficit is no doubt smaller than it was 20 years ago! I haven't looked up any exact figures of course...but right now we're overspending on foreign programs (IMHO). Beyond 20 years ago, and even farther back, we were funding major wars...including providing rebuilding funds to european countries post-WWII. We haven't had a major war in a long time. Once "rebuilding" programs begin to flood into our post-war iraq project, I think we'll start to see the deficit grow.

 

But in any case, I know that local within-US programs are receiving less funding by the year. Schools are losing govt funded programs, and as I mentioned before police/fire/etc are operating on reduced budgets. There was a local strike threat in my area by police because of necessary wage cuts because of this. Yet we're still spending so much on foreign programs, it boggles me that we wouldn't consider within-US problems more of a priority.

 

If people choose to remember only the WMD reason, that's their choice. But there were indeed other reasons and justifications for getting involved.

 

You are correct and I concede. But I still believed that the administration used the "immediate threat" of WMD to rally the support of the American people and Congress. I think if nothing else there was a serious priority shift from early on in the campaign to the end of the war. I think the focus initially was on WMD, although I now admit Saddam's dictatorship did play a minor role, but later shifted completely away from WMD and moved entirely to Saddam.

 

Again I could be wrong...but from watching and listening to all the news available, this is the impression that was given to me.

[Vex Xiang 0]

Besides, what do you think the fallout would be if we just stopped assisting other countries? Eventually it would get back to us, either via armed conflicts or political backlash.

 

Forgot to respond to this part.

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I don't think we should stop helping out altogether, but I don't think we should be spending such a large portion of our budget on it. Money that could go for many needed programs here in the motherland.

 

I DO believe that we should assist other countries when asked...such as aiding them in strengthening their own economies and rebuilding with minimal interference, not just dishing out load of cash.

[Images 0]

Though it should be every country's duty to try to better the world we live in, it is no country's job to be a police or a watchdog. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.