May be I should start a new 'philosophical political' thread and leave this one alone for those just interested in bashing trump and conservatives?
Feel kinda bad to upset those who want me to stay out of their bubble...
May be I should start a new 'philosophical political' thread and leave this one alone for those just interested in bashing trump and conservatives?
Feel kinda bad to upset those who want me to stay out of their bubble...
Billi - again Im going to say "power"
if the person you should report has power over you, then you are less culpable. Of cause its a balance between the seriousness of the offence and the degree of power (risk job, risk life). Generally if they have any significant power, then you could be at great personal risk if you say anything.
Now if the person who knows has the power or is an equal, that is then very different.
We just had a catholic cardinal loss a court case and will now stand trial. This is very different to say an altar boy also knowing what was going on.
The cardinal helped cover up crimes.
So yeah - a driver is a lot bigger difference to a financial backer. That you are talking about more money, implying that they are buying you off, still doesnt change the huge disparity in power between them. Its hard to put blame on someone who didnt do the crime but knows about it, but who also has very little power. History (even recent history) is littered with people who "did the right thing", it went nowhere except to destroy them. You have to be very brave and determined to be a whistleblower.
Weinstein is the classic example - he made good on threats and actresses found out that their careers were hurt (generally told "she is very hard to work with, dont use her" and people accepted his word)
They way you are talking about this it seems like a weak attempt to shift blame.
In honor of the election today out here in CA, there's this guy running for Feinstein's senate seat.
Oh boy...
Also, I didn't realize CA's stupid "top two" primary until just a few months ago. That sounds like such a bad idea. Why can't we just get ranked voting across the board?
We have nearly 2 pages of candidates running for governor and US senate... need to narrow the field down a bit...
The issue is that being a state that tends to heavily lean one direction, you get a ton of candidates from one party and not many from another. The Senate one isn't that bad on that front, but consider the 22nd district. Nunes is the only Republican while there are three Democrats running against him. Even if only 30% of people vote for Nunes, if the three Democrats are all pretty evenly matched they'll end up only getting about 23% of the vote each. Presumably, that'd lead to the parties more directly interfering with the candidates, the Democratic party would probably insist that two of the three Democrats drop out so there's a better chance the party would take the seat, and we know how some people, especially Sanders supporters, feel about the party imposing its will on candidates. Similarly, this would tend to favor incumbents as it's not that common that there are many serious challengers from the same party for incumbents.
Writing something in a non-quote to make forum software not whine.Originally Posted by AP
Ranked voting (preferential aka instant runoff) is designed for that sort of situation.
It means you could have 2 or more people from the same party against similar from another party, plus more parties or independents.
It doesn’t suffer from “vote splitting”, since you can vote effectively for all the members of the party you like, your vote can switch between them to the one that ends up the most popular.
It also means you don’t need to run multi-stage elections, it’s all done in one go.
When did AP get into satire?
...
He also called him a Tyrant, trying to start a dictatorship.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote