Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Since I don't know how to start a poll, I figured that a simple thread would work.

I know that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group, and a pretty small minority; both of which are types of groups that generally tend not to vote.

So, who here tends to vote? (and if you don't mind to share, how do you typically vote?)

  Voter since '72, every election, including the city charter ones.  Mainly Republican, lately towards the Democrats in my state due to the inept selections out of our local caucuses.
  Joelene

Quote from: Joelene9 on December 10, 2011, 09:00:45 PM
  Voter since '72, every election, including the city charter ones.  Mainly Republican, lately towards the Democrats in my state due to the inept selections out of our local caucuses.
  Joelene

And what state would that be?

We have caucuses here in Utah as well- they generally attract the scum of the Earth.
Since all of the districts were gerrymandered, each district has a comfortable 15-20% Republican majority. The problem is that the state caucuses are only like 1500 individuals, so essentially .000000001%  of the population picks virtually all of the office holders.

If you don't mind me asking, are you a fiscal or social conservative? That is, what do you think about the social agenda of the GOP?

In Australia voting is compulsory.  That has the up-side that you can't be prevented from voting either.
Whether you put numbers in the squares (preferential voting, another great idea), or  write " you are all lying mongrels who deserve a painful death" across the ballot paper is up to you.  It is a secret ballot, and no-one can see what you have put on the paper.

I vote in every election.  Early and often, as they say in Chicago.  I've worked on local and state level party politics (Democrat, of course), and when I was in Iowa I worked on several Presidential Campaigns (never on a winning side I'm almost proud to say).  Currently I'm on my unions political action committee, most of which is focused on local elections.

Vote? Always and in every election. 

Quote from: tekla on December 11, 2011, 10:12:30 AM
Early and often, as they say in Chicago.

Besides allowing frequent voting, we Chicagoans also allow everyone to vote, regardless of ridiculous restrictions like death certificates.

I don't vote.  For my reasoning why I don't vote, please refer to:  George Carlin

I do feel bad about it sometimes, like I'm only encouraging them.

Quote from: VeryGnawty on December 11, 2011, 11:58:34 AM
I don't vote.  For my reasoning why I don't vote, please refer to:  George Carlin

Then the fanatics get their way.

I vote at all levels, but I see a lot more concrete change happening from local politicians/ballot measures/whatever. The national stuff does get depressing.

Maybe we should all vote republican. Then there would be no infighting. They would do so many crazy things they could never get elected agin. Yea thats the ticket.. i mean what more can they do to destroy this country???  Not much they have it bought and sold..

Yea i made a mistake about the democrats.. I even was a delegate for Obama but he has wimped out and has let the right walk all over him and so does the rest of the demorats..

Its probably time to let the right go wild so that people actually fight back and never elect another one again.. at least we won't get bounced back and forth in ping pong politics

well actually i have joined the www.the99declaration.org (http://www.the99declaration.org) to try to let congress / senate / president know our grievences

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 11, 2011, 05:04:10 AM
And what state would that be?

We have caucuses here in Utah as well- they generally attract the scum of the Earth.
Since all of the districts were gerrymandered, each district has a comfortable 15-20% Republican majority. The problem is that the state caucuses are only like 1500 individuals, so essentially .000000001%  of the population picks virtually all of the office holders.

If you don't mind me asking, are you a fiscal or social conservative? That is, what do you think about the social agenda of the GOP?

Colorado.  The last presidential election was the Colorado caucus that actually counted nationally.  That was the first one I went to as with 95% of others in that room.  I live in a neighborhood of 35% white.  Only 2 African-Americans showed up for this one.  There were a few that looked and acted like the survivalist types, the type I still deem scary.  That room was packed. 
  This latest district divisions will put 2 Republican congressmen out of office.  The Republican majority districting was turned-down by a judge for the minority Democratic one.  It is on appeal.  Hold on to your seats!
  I am a fiscal conservative and a moderate social conservative.  I do believe for the government to spend less on pork, yet raise the tax for schools, infrastructure, military and Social Security. 
  Joelene

Voting since 1988

Yes. I actually casted a ballot for Biden, years before probably all of you. I forget the year, but it was one of his many reelection to the Senate. I believe the GOP put up the dog catcher from Sussex County, maybe county commish.

I mostly vote GOP. I'll change that if the incumbent tends to be a conservative Dem. Sen. Nelson-D is getting the boot in '12, Obama Care. I'll think you'll see a few Dems fall this time around who claim to be "moderate".

If the 'Pub is a crook, like our current Gov in FL, than I, proudly, vote Dem.

I'm more along the lines of a fiscal conservative, social liberal kinda of gal, who is a foreign policy hawk. In addition I hold to the orginialist constitutionalist view.

Anybody but Barack in 2012!!

No, this guy is epic suck. As in Carteresque. Besides 3 of our last 4 Presidents have had two terms.

I keep telling you that this 1776 War of Independence, Republic thing was a really bad idea.  :laugh: You could all have been Canadians with free health care.  :'(

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 12, 2011, 04:38:51 AM
I keep telling you that this 1776 War of Independence, Republic thing was a really bad idea.  :laugh: You could all have been Canadians with free health care.  :'(

This ^^. I'd like to be a member of the commonwealth.

Also, we could spell meager as meagre. It would open up a whole new world of crazy Engrish spelling.

I currently don't vote, but it's a point of frustration. I moved a few years ago, and my country of birth doesn't allow non-resident citizens to vote, and I'm not yet eligible to become a citizen of my new country.

The frustration at not being allowed to vote is probably one of the biggest reasons why I want to become a citizen, once that option is open to me.

I just turned 18 not too long ago so I've never voted before. However, I'm a registered Republican but I can't stand any of the candidates trying to win the Republican nomination. Ron Paul is probably the only one I would vote for. Either him or Obama. Maybe Jon Huntsman.

Quote from: Joelene9 on December 10, 2011, 09:00:45 PM
  Voter since '72, every election, including the city charter ones.  Mainly Republican, lately towards the Democrats in my state due to the inept selections out of our local caucuses.
  Joelene

Me too, although I rarely vote for a "liberal" candidate or cause.  I tend toward those candidates with a streak of libertarianism.  (I put "liberal" in quotations because most self-styled liberals are really statists.)

Quote from: Laura91 on December 11, 2011, 03:08:38 PM
Well, when both sides of the voting aisle are filled with nothing but different shades of crap, who do you vote for?

You vote for the person who best represents your interests.  That is how a republican democracy works.

I also assess candidates as to how true they are to the original meeaning and intent of the US Constitution (as amended).

Quote from: Michelle. on December 11, 2011, 10:28:24 PM
No, this guy is epic suck. As in Carteresque. Besides 3/4 Presidents have had two terms.

43 people have served as President (one, Grover Cleveland, served non-consecutive terms but is enumerated twice as #22 and #24).

Of that 20 have been elected to a second term.

Of those 20, 3 did not complete their second term (Lincoln, McKinley, Nixon).  4 others were re-elected after serving the remainder of the predecessor's term (T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, L Johnson).  1 President (F Roosevelt) served more than two terms.

Historically speaking, fewer than half the Presidents have had more than one term.

Quote from: Jamie D on December 12, 2011, 03:39:46 PM
Me too, although I rarely vote for a "liberal" candidate or cause.  I tend toward those candidates with a streak of libertarianism.  (I put "liberal" in quotations because most self-styled liberals are really statists.)

Agreed, my fellow libertarian. I didn't know libertarians were common among Transgendered groups.

Even as a transgendered MtF, I can't stand radical feminists. Why can't both sides, MRAs and Feminists recognize that both genders are not equal, and work towards equality for all, rather than just themselves, because if they only focus on their own gender, it won't really be equality. I think it's because both sides have a victimhood mentality.

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 12, 2011, 04:38:51 AM
I keep telling you that this 1776 War of Independence, Republic thing was a really bad idea.  :laugh: You could all have been Canadians with free health care.  :'(

"Canada" was invited to join the United States in 1781, under the 11th article of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

They could have been Americans just by saying "yes" (or "oui," as the case may be).

Quote from: Keri Allison on December 12, 2011, 04:01:02 PM
Agreed, my fellow libertarian. I didn't know libertarians were common among Transgendered groups.

Even as a transgendered MtF, I can't stand radical feminists. Why can't both sides, MRAs and Feminists recognize that both genders are not equal, and work towards equality for all, rather than just themselves, because if they only focus on their own gender, it won't really be equality. I think it's because both sides have a victimhood mentality.

Libertarians generally tend to focus on individual freedoms and individual responsibilities.  It is about opportunities, not outcomes.  I was never one to participate in "groupthink."

Quote from: Jamie D on December 12, 2011, 04:08:36 PM
Libertarians generally tend to focus on individual freedoms and individual responsibilities.  It is about opportunities, not outcomes.  I was never one to participate in "groupthink."

That was my mistake. Classic Ron Paul lols

I think by this point, given who the Republicans have trotted out, and the almost insane stuff that's come out of their mouths (and on TV, so it can be re-shown endlessly) Obama could spend his (considerable) reelection fund on hookers and blow, show up at a debate or two, and otherwise just sit back and wait for the second inauguration.  Any/all of the Republicans are going to find it tough to win the states they have to.

Quote from: tekla on December 13, 2011, 10:44:56 AM
I think by this point, given who the Republicans have trotted out, and the almost insane stuff that's come out of their mouths (and on TV, so it can be re-shown endlessly) Obama could spend his (considerable) reelection fund on hookers and blow, show up at a debate or two, and otherwise just sit back and wait for the second inauguration.  Any/all of the Republicans are going to find it tough to win the states they have to.

A little less than a year out from the election and Mr. Obama's approval rating hovers in the low 40's.

His popularity with independent voters has tanked.

Unemployment remains high, and millions of unemployed have dropped off the radar because they have stopped looking for work.  (Some say the "real" unemployment rate, including the "long-term discouraged works" is over 20%.)

I vote early and often. Next one for me is the vote to recall Governor Scott Walker, the union busting republican from Wisconsin.
The voice of the people shall be heard!

Jennifer

Quote from: Jennifer on December 28, 2011, 09:29:34 AM
I vote early and often. Next one for me is the vote to recall Governor Scott Walker, the union busting republican from Wisconsin.
The voice of the people shall be heard!

Jennifer

How do the polls look for mr. Walker?

Is he going to win the election or be recalled?

The national media (at least NPR) hasn't really been covering it so I have no idea what the situation is like.

I don't vote. But

OBAMA 2012

Can't we just not have a president?

Or we could follow Caligula's example and elect a horse. I bet it would do a better job than anyone running.

Quote from: Mahsa the disco shark on December 28, 2011, 11:08:34 PM
Anybody but...

OBAMA 2012

Really, what good has he accomplished in 3 years?

Quote from: Jamie D on December 29, 2011, 04:21:48 AM
Really, what good has he accomplished in 3 years?

I think the more apt question is:

What sort of bad would any of the Republican candidates do over the next four years if they win the presidency?

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 28, 2011, 10:51:15 PM
How do the polls look for mr. Walker?

Hi Guantanamera,

Thanks for asking. According to the experts that I have been following, it doesn't look good for Walker. The original election was very close to begin with, but many republicans have said they will change their vote, along with the fence sitters (people who could vote for either party depending on which way the wind is blowing). Walker never mentioned in his campaign that he wanted to bust the unions and the very first thing he did after becoming governor was to take away the right of state union employees to negotiate with their employers, and reduced some of their benefits. >:-) As a result, public school teachers and many others will see smaller paychecks and reduced benefits. This was a shock to everyone including many who voted for him. He did promise to create jobs which is not happening. :embarrassed: He also turned down over 800 million dollars in federal grants to build high speed rail in Wisconsin which would reduce traffic congestion and pollution and help the environment. ??? This free money instead went to Ohio, Illinois and California. WPR (Wisconsin Public Radio) has had countless experts on their programs discussing this topic. Thank you NPR and WPR. This is why everyone should vote!

Jennifer

Quote from: Jennifer on December 29, 2011, 10:37:46 AM
Hi Guantanamera,

Thanks for asking. According to the experts that I have been following, it doesn't look good for Walker.
Jennifer

Is he up for recall in a special election or on the ballot in the general?

I can't remember, is your state a swing state or does it normally go Democratic?

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 29, 2011, 02:21:15 PM
Is he up for recall in a special election or on the ballot in the general?

I can't remember, is your state a swing state or does it normally go Democratic?

He is up for recall in a special election. Jan. 15 is the end of the 60 day petition signing period in which we need 540,000 signatures in order to force a special election. We already have more signatures than that however I am sure some will be thrown out as invalid. Never the less it seems to be a sure bet the election will happen. Walker is in bed with the billionaire Koch brothers and other "Big Business" Republicans and they are now pumping millions of dollars into the Wisconsin economy buying ads on T.V. etc. to try and influence an unwavering public with creative and deceptive adds that border on silly and downright untruthful. That is one way to help our local economy, thanks guys. They have one T.V. ad with a woman who claims to be a public school teacher who gives great praise to everything Walker has done. I have talked to hundreds of teachers and not a single one feels this way. Their incomes have been reduced and their workloads increased due to Walker slashing school funding in an attempt to balance the budget. No wonder our nation is falling behind the rest of the world in education.

Wisconsin has historically gone Democratic but we are now considered a swing state. The last presidential election we just barely went Democratic.

NOW GO OUT AND VOTE!

Jennifer

I sometimes vote! If I'm not busy or I feel it will make a diffrence.

Quote from: MyAlias on December 29, 2011, 08:48:18 PM
I sometimes vote! If I'm not busy or I feel it will make a diffrence.

Geez, what ever happened to get out the vote?

For everyone under the LBGTQ (ASERGYT etc. etc.) umbrella that doesn't vote, bigots are one-step closer to seriously delivering the hurt on our lives.

I'm with Karen,
Compulsory voting in Australia. Personally I think it should be compulsory in every democratic country. At least everyone then has to take the blame for voting in the jerk. But we vote for individual members of a political party, the party with the majority is then the ruling party and they choose their leader. We don't officially vote for the Prime Minister.

everybody can vote now in the USA online

go to www.the99declaration.org (http://www.the99declaration.org) if your a US citizen

but they do allow input from foreigners

Is anyone here registered as a member of a specific political party? (Do they even that have that system in the Commonwealth?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations)

I'm not in the Commonwealth, but I'm a registered Democrat. Former Libertarian.

Do you belong to a state that has a fairly active opposition/third=party system?

I live in the lovely backwater of Utah, so outside of Salt Lake City I'm fairly certain that the democratic party doesn't even have county offices/leaders lol.

On the plus side, I can become a registered member of-count them- 5 different third parties, all more right-wing than the last.

ooh this topic is so open for comment, well my comments anyway.

Quote from: Cindy James on December 30, 2011, 01:19:59 AM
I'm with Karen,
Compulsory voting in Australia. Personally I think it should be compulsory in every democratic country. At least everyone then has to take the blame for voting in the jerk. But we vote for individual members of a political party, the party with the majority is then the ruling party and they choose their leader. We don't officially vote for the Prime Minister.

I am from Australia and like Cindy said, we have compulsory voting in Oz, they (the political parties) value our freedom of speech so much they will fine you for using your right to free speech and not voting. So much for free speech huh. One election I forgot to vote so I put down the reason for not voting as "I was at work" the Returning Officer rang me and said "working in a Polling Booth doesn't count" (where votes are cast), although they didn't fine me.

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 31, 2011, 01:56:27 AM
Do you belong to a state that has a fairly active opposition/third=party system?

I live in the lovely backwater of Utah, so outside of Salt Lake City I'm fairly certain that the democratic party doesn't even have county offices/leaders lol.

On the plus side, I can become a registered member of-count them- 5 different third parties, all more right-wing than the last.

From Wikipedia:

The following is a list of political parties officially recognized by the Oregon Elections Division as statewide parties as of June 21, 2011 (alphabetical, by title in official record).

    * Constitution Party (see also United States Constitution Party)
    * Democratic Party (see also United States Democratic Party)
    * Independent Party of Oregon
    * Libertarian Party (see also Libertarian Party (United States))
    * Oregon Republican Party(see also United States Republican Party)
    * Pacific Green Party (see also United States Green Party)
    * Progressive Party (Known as the "Oregon Peace Party" until September 18, 2009)
    * Working Families Party of Oregon (see also Working Families Party)

Lol until I looked it up I did not know that the Progressive Party and the Oregon Peace Party were the same people.

I always think Oregon is super left wing, but I live in Portland. As a state overall we've got enough conservatives and pioneer types that it kinda balances out.

And, what pray tell do they do in OZ if they don't like the candidate their party is running?  You have three types (and this has been exhaustively researched) of people in the US who don't vote.  One, (surprisingly or not, this is the majority of them) people who are basically happy with the way things are, see no real need to change and don't feel it's important.  Two, people who are 'dropped out' of system in one way or another, either too poor, too rootless, or don't feel it makes a difference, or just don't want to encourage them.  Three, (the 'swing' votes - or swing non-votes, if you will - in most elections) people who don't like the choice/direction of the political party of their choosing.

Very few people in the US who are hard-core Democrats, or Republicans will likely vote for the other party.  This system is not structured in that way.  No Republican who feels (for example) that Mitt Romney is not 'conservative' enough is going to vote for Obama because of it.  No Democrat who thinks that Obama is too center/moderate/compromising is going to cast a vote for Michele Bachman as a protest.  There are a relatively small number of 'independents' (not registered to either party) who do switch votes around, but they don't derail and lose an election like it does when the base does not come out and support their party.

Tekla I will use some terms loosely for the sake of argument.

What you have is a political dictatorship that means the 'party' that has the most voters gets elected.  In Australia it is more democratic because if the populace thinks the clowns wear the same funny nose they do not get a majority. In practise the political parties HAVE to get support from the populace. The minority of voters are party members so the majority have to think about it and be convinced.

Yes there is a chance of a massive donkey vote, there is always the chance of a hung parliament, not a bad thing BTW. And it allows minor parties to develop and get power, either as independents or as a coalition.


We have had political parties come and go. At the moment Australia is run by a Labour government with support from independents and the 'greens' so people outside of the political party can demand big changes in policy. I'm not sure if that is possible in the USA at a Fed level?

For example this is forcing same sex marriage through, because a key independent has made it a condition to support the Lab P.

Oh BTW

Happy New Year,

Any good shows?

Cindy

Well I saw Jubilee! with my friends and GF in Vegas, awesome seats ('cause I know how to kiss ass on a ticket sales person, that's why.  P.S.  Tipping helps!  Really.  People can be bought, and usually pretty cheaply.) and it was fantastic.  Really one of the best shows I've seen in years.  Snoop Dogg sucked, just a parody of himself anymore.  Eryka Badu was good as usual, but kinda flat, she needs to start exploring some new directions.  This DJ from Sweden was as good as  DJ gets without being Paul Oakenfold circa 1999, Further was kinda of tired, slow, sloppy changes, but that was the first of three nights and they should pick it up (cause they can't sound any worse, can they?).

My day and a half with Metallica (and Lou Reed, and Marianne Faithful (yeah, her) and some of the guys from King Diamond and Anthrax, Mike Judge of Bevis and Butthead and all sorts of 'don't you know who I am!' types¹) would require it's own post, it's pretty funny really.  Sad too.

I'm doing Tedeschi Trucks Band tonight.  She's a kick ass blues guitar player, excellent singer who's family name is associated with a small chain of grocery stores on the East Coast, and he's the guitar phoneme, nephew of Butch Trucks, original percussion player for the Allman Brothers, so that's his story.  They met, fell in love (she's a bit older) and now they play together.  That's my NYE.


..................................
But see...
We don't have a national political system.  Its' the United States, and the states have a huge power when it comes to elections, and, at that - there is NO national election for any national office.  Unless you count American Idol.  Elections for President are really not for the office, but for electors on some formula derived by the state itself (so it's not universal, some apportion, some are winner take all) who meet later and actually vote the joker in.  The states could just go ahead and appoint electors, or have their state senate do it.  They used to.  Direct election of US senators is only pretty recent as the nation goes. 

And we don't have 'hung Parliament' - hell if we got those guys hangin' we'd never let them down - but we have (and apparently LOVE) divided government where the executive and the legislative are split to different parties.  Or the House from the Senate.  Or the states from the Feds.  Or some wacky combination of all of the above like the one we currently have going on, and under that many of the state governments are further split executive/legislative and house and senate.  Obviously (and its sure a lot easier to see this looking in, than from the inside out) we DON'T MUCH LIKE OR TRUST EITHER PARTY.  Hence the constant pitting.

There is also something else that is really driving it.  Demographics.  People move, in the US people move a lot.  Tons.  Far more than other nations.  And there have always been some pretty sharp reasons for moving from one place to another.  Opportunity, new job, a job, a promotion, school - all that stuff.  And people have moved because of the weather, or the climate.  But over the last 20 years lots, and lots, and lots of people have moved because of the social climate/scene.  There were always people moving for 'lifestyle' kinds of reasons since the 1900s, but since the 60s more and more people are choosing a place to live based on that, and the kind of people those places attract.  And it seems to be working across the board as more liberal areas gain more and more liberal minded people, and as conservative places attract people who are attracted to that kind of society.  That's what the real red/blue split in the US is really all about, and it's it's only going to get deeper and deeper that way.  California and New York are going to continue to get more progressive, and Iowa looks more and more like A Handmaiden's Tale every year.

And the names of the parties don't change, but the policies do.  The Democrats have basically become what the East Coast Republicans always were.  The Republicans moved so far to the right to get out of their way that they are in danger of falling off the political map and becoming something else, and it's about time.



TRUCKS & TEDESCHI BAND - Midnight In Harlem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7czlanjaObs#)


1.  I used to love to say "I'm the janitor, am I supposed to?" which would always set them back a second before they decided that they were OK with me NOT knowing them.  Sean Penn is the only guy who never tripped up on that one.  Now I just look at 'em real hard and say, "Nope, do I get a hint?".

Our two party system is a bit messed up, and I have voted Green Party in protest. I'll never argue that it was the right thing to do, though. I don't have that conviction.

Tekla I love the "i'm the janitor" thing. Genius. :laugh:

I'm pretty liberal, and I moved to a liberal place (though for mostly-unrelated reasons), and lol I felt the need to apologize to my people back in Alabama. Oregon certainly didn't need me.

We have six  states and two territories that have state parliaments, these are the people who ruin our daily lives, we then have the Federal government. There is a reasonably constant feud between the states and the feds, even when they are from the same side of politics.

We also have continual movement of people between the states which alters the demographics incredibly. The wealth of the states is also totally different. West Australia is enormous and is very wealthy from mining, but has a small population. South Australia is also a very large state with the World's biggest copper and Uranium mine at Roxby Downs. Victoria is comparatively small but has a large population and industry base.

Tasmania is small and has forests and Justmeinoz as the major assets (sorry Karen :laugh:).

So political opinion changes a lot from place to place depending on where the money comes from. For example Federal Labour don't want Uranium exported, South Australian Labour are totally in support of exporting it, so our issues get clouded

Quote from: Cindy James on January 01, 2012, 12:22:38 AM
We have six  states and two territories that have state parliaments, these are the people who ruin our daily lives, we then have the Federal government. There is a reasonably constant feud between the states and the feds, even when they are from the same side of politics.

We also have continual movement of people between the states which alters the demographics incredibly. The wealth of the states is also totally different. West Australia is enormous and is very wealthy from mining, but has a small population. South Australia is also a very large state with the World's biggest copper and Uranium mine at Roxby Downs. Victoria is comparatively small but has a large population and industry base.

Tasmania is small and has forests and Justmeinoz as the major assets (sorry Karen :laugh:).

So political opinion changes a lot from place to place depending on where the money comes from. For example Federal Labour don't want Uranium exported, South Australian Labour are totally in support of exporting it, so our issues get clouded

so they do have Tasmanian ANGELS TOO   :angel:  :D

Quote from: justmeinoz on December 11, 2011, 06:43:13 AM
In Australia voting is compulsory.

I think that's coming in the U.S. The percentage of people who vote has been dropping. People are losing faith in "the system" which is good. I see it as a sort of irrational religion, the latest man-made god, and I'm an atheist. Well, not really. I just don't believe in man-made gods.

So they will have to go to more extreme measures to prop up the delusion that the serfs have any say in anything. Our republic or democracy or whatever you want to call it is looking less and less legitimate. More and more people are becoming conspiracy theorists. The government is labeling more and more dissenters as terrorists. They will likely make voting mandatory to maintain the illusion that we're all participating in our own governing rather than being exploited, controlled, and manipulated.

Nah, I don't think they will ever make voting mandatory, too much at risk - too many people who don't vote now because they think it makes no difference, and that suits the power structure just fine.  The actual trend is in the exact opposite direction which sees ongoing voter suppression efforts in many states.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda. Maybe that's fine, it's within their rights and they can argue that keeping Democratic programs from going forward is in itself an accomplishment, but I don't think so.  They literally have nothing to showcase in terms of what they've achieved since 2009. Their programs consist of three word slogans -- Taxed Enough Already, Drill, Baby, Drill--with nothing substantive to show for them and plenty of examples of the counterproductive effects of their intransigence (i.e., loss of the AAA credit rating from S&P) and a series of frivolous and symbolic wastes of time and money in Congress.

So on one level the Republicans are directionless and they have nothing to offer the country.  Their legitimate candidates--Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Gary Johnson, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman--have either studiously avoided the nomination process or have already been ignominiously rejected. The fact that they would even consider "candidates" like Donald Trump and Herman Cain shows how intellectually bereft they have become. It's scary because, as the republicans marginalize themselves, the country heads more and more towards one party rule.  At this point the only way the republicans can win in November is through scare tactics, veiled appeals to racism and misogyny, and an economic downturn which they actually have the power to bring about.  They've already shown a willingness to play the economic nuclear option card as they did during the manufactured debt ceiling crisis.  Are they prepared to destroy the country to prevent Obama's reelection? Sadly, this seems more and more likely.

For years we've all watched them as they went full retard.  They keep squealing about putting their party before the country and then unashamedly projected their failings onto the Democrats, who were trying their best to keep the country working.  The Republican Party is a collection of backwards ->-bleeped-<-s, snakebite evangelists, high flying financiers, and your basic con artists who follow slogans that were only designed to fark them over, and it is still continuing.  And there is no rhyme or reason to their party.

But I think it's even worse than that for them, because the nation really doesn't need them at all anymore - particularly the way they are pretending to  The Republican Party has collapsed, and we are seeing them try to play their 'but there needs to be TWO parties' BS one last time so those in power can land in cushy jobs before we get a few decades of Democratic rule that will only begin to resolve these issues.

So what do they do?  Straighen up and fly right?  Nah, they double down on stupid.  They think they need to be more hardline in their conservatism. The reason the baby is still crying is because you haven't shaken him hard enough.  And that's not even enough, you've got to get a few slaps in there, too.   

The political trend in Australia from the parties is to stop compulsory voting. They hate it. It means they have to spend money and convince people to vote for them.  The Australian public are funny, many think that compulsory voting is wrong and denies freedom. You DON'T have to vote in Australia. You have to register that you voted. No one gives a cent if you throw the paper in the bin, spoil it or vote for your pet dog. None of those are illegal. You can register to vote scrunch up the papers and drop them in the bin in front of the voting officials. It is your right to do so. But political parties hate the donkey vote. They also hate that if a group/party reach a certain level of votes they ARE represented in parliament, usually in the upper house. Although we do have independents controlling our lower house at the moment. These independents sell their souls for legislation they believe in, some of them have souls to sell. Most end up wanting power with it's fleeting glory and disappear into the abyss. We also have a system that if your party reaches X% of the vote then the electoral commission has to give you a certain amount of money to continue. The major parties hate that as well. But it means minor parties can exist. Most are rubbish, but some are not. I think that is good for Democracy. Major parties have no interest in Democracy in their own country (IMO). They want them in countries they cannot control. Is this paranoia? Probably.

Can the Parties change this in Australia? Yes. But not easily, they have to have a referendum on it. They have a have a snowballs chance in hell to change it. We couldn't even agree to be a Republic. To allow a Political party to rule supreme? No way, thank Goddess


Cindy

Quote from: Guantanamera on December 10, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
Since I don't know how to start a poll, I figured that a simple thread would work.

I know that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group, and a pretty small minority; both of which are types of groups that generally tend not to vote.

So, who here tends to vote? (and if you don't mind to share, how do you typically vote?)

???Really Dear you know for a fact that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group.... do you have some research to back that view up. I am not poverty stricken nor as a group name those with a backbone, don't see myself as a member in a small minority

Quote from: Guest 1 on February 13, 2012, 07:37:37 PM
???Really Dear you know for a fact that trans people are pretty much poverty stricken as a group.... do you have some research to back that view up. I am not poverty stricken nor as a group name those with a backbone, don't see myself as a member in a small minority

I'm inarticulate because I'm touchy tonight but my god. Without going on a research binge I can still safely say that minority and marginalized groups tend to have lower incomes. I think Guantanamera's statement was less careless than it looks.

Also your grammar is odd so I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm pretty disgustingly poverty stricken, probably have inbred family, didn't finish middle school, and I have plenty of backbone. I work hard and I always have.

And Guest 1 if you are trans you are a member of a minority group whether you like it or not. It's just numbers and not a judgement.

Quote from: tekla on February 12, 2012, 02:57:20 PM
Nah, I don't think they will ever make voting mandatory, too much at risk - too many people who don't vote now because they think it makes no difference, and that suits the power structure just fine.  The actual trend is in the exact opposite direction which sees ongoing voter suppression efforts in many states.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda. Maybe that's fine, it's within their rights and they can argue that keeping Democratic programs from going forward is in itself an accomplishment, but I don't think so.  They literally have nothing to showcase in terms of what they've achieved since 2009. Their programs consist of three word slogans -- Taxed Enough Already, Drill, Baby, Drill--with nothing substantive to show for them and plenty of examples of the counterproductive effects of their intransigence (i.e., loss of the AAA credit rating from S&P) and a series of frivolous and symbolic wastes of time and money in Congress.

So on one level the Republicans are directionless and they have nothing to offer the country.  Their legitimate candidates--Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Gary Johnson, Rudy Giuliani, Jon Huntsman--have either studiously avoided the nomination process or have already been ignominiously rejected. The fact that they would even consider "candidates" like Donald Trump and Herman Cain shows how intellectually bereft they have become. It's scary because, as the republicans marginalize themselves, the country heads more and more towards one party rule.  At this point the only way the republicans can win in November is through scare tactics, veiled appeals to racism and misogyny, and an economic downturn which they actually have the power to bring about.  They've already shown a willingness to play the economic nuclear option card as they did during the manufactured debt ceiling crisis.  Are they prepared to destroy the country to prevent Obama's reelection? Sadly, this seems more and more likely.

For years we've all watched them as they went full retard.  They keep squealing about putting their party before the country and then unashamedly projected their failings onto the Democrats, who were trying their best to keep the country working.  The Republican Party is a collection of backwards ->-bleeped-<-s, snakebite evangelists, high flying financiers, and your basic con artists who follow slogans that were only designed to fark them over, and it is still continuing.  And there is no rhyme or reason to their party.

But I think it's even worse than that for them, because the nation really doesn't need them at all anymore - particularly the way they are pretending to  The Republican Party has collapsed, and we are seeing them try to play their 'but there needs to be TWO parties' BS one last time so those in power can land in cushy jobs before we get a few decades of Democratic rule that will only begin to resolve these issues.

So what do they do?  Straighen up and fly right?  Nah, they double down on stupid.  They think they need to be more hardline in their conservatism. The reason the baby is still crying is because you haven't shaken him hard enough.  And that's not even enough, you've got to get a few slaps in there, too.

Wow, quite a rant, tekla!

The Republican Party is becoming quite a bit more inclusive than their opponents want to admit.  That they are willing to field candidates as diverse as Herman Cain, or Michelle Bachman, or Donald Trump, speaks to a degree of open-mindedness that has seemingly left the Democrats.  Of course, those candidates must make it through the political winnowing process. All but one will fall by the wayside.

What I see is that for the past three years republicans have been doing nothing but preventing Obama from pursuing the Democratic agenda.

For the first two years of the Obama administration, the Republicans had little power to stop anything.  What stopped Obama's radical agenda was it's sheer audacity and the fear it caused mainstream Americans.  The Tea Party movement was an outgrowth of that fear and an expression of the distrust the public has for leftist politics.  The successful candidates who ran in agreement with the Tea Party principles of smaller, less invasive government, now have an obligation to stop Obama at every opportunity.

By the election of 2014, I'd like to see more inroads into the GLBT community as part of the "Big Tent."

You need to convince your own people of that.  To date only one primary/caucuses has enjoyed larger numbers than then last time everyone did this dance.  That - with an open ticket, with a 'feared socialist/Marxist/radical (Harvard trained lawer)' to oppose, hell I bet the Republicans hate on Obama more than both Clintons together, X2 - yet... state, after state, after state, after state, after state has fewer people voting Republican.

And good luck with that big tent deal, the rhetoric (and I'll remind you that its' not even ginned up yet) seems intent on forcing everyone else out.  It's anti-black, anti-Hispanic (which, BTW I've never got outside of pure, straight-up racism, because that's just about the most conservative/family values focused group around, they would be natural Republicans if it wasn't for, well, the other Republicans), anti-gay, anti-union, anti-women - anti-pretty much everyone except old rich white people and openly racist people.

So, do you think it's going to be Rick (R-Frothy, I'm really running for 2016) or Michelle (R-Crazytown, she who is going to be needing a job soon, or else she's a liar and is going to run for re-election anyway - you know that 'term limit' thing, that's just for people we don't like) that's going to give the big Republican LGBT welcoming speech?  Have Herm deliver some pizzas too.  At least the gays will be safe from being sexually molested when he's around, he's the rare Republican that cheats with people of the opposite sex.

I think what is really bothering me about the current GOP is the practical glee they have been partaking in as American companies with American jobs fail. They practically had an orgasm over Solyndra going down because it hurt Obama, ignoring that American companies and workers in the solar energy field are the ones losing jobs to our foreign competitors who have no problem investing in businesses that help their own countrymen.  (China's rate of investment in solar power is 4X what our is, for one example)

You can argue all you want about the level of involvement of government in the US economy, and there are valid arguments on both sides of intervention vs. nonintervention, but to dance on the graves of Americans' jobs is rather disgusting.  I know they don't give a damn about people, but it's customary to at least pretend to when you want them to vote for you.

And good luck with that big tent deal, the rhetoric (and I'll remind you that its' not even ginned up yet) seems intent on forcing everyone else out.  It's anti-black, anti-Hispanic (which, BTW I've never got outside of pure, straight-up racism, because that's just about the most conservative/family values focused group around, they would be natural Republicans if it wasn't for, well, the other Republicans), anti-gay, anti-union, anti-women - anti-pretty much everyone except old rich white people and openly racist people.

Pure hooey.

Show me the numbers of the new LGBT, Black, Hispanic and other voters that are surging to the Republicans?  How about some welcoming, inclusive kinds of quotes from any of the front runners?  And I'm still waiting for some sort of spin on how decidedly (we're talking double digits here) lower turnout is actually a sign of emerging Republican strength.

Quote from: tekla on February 14, 2012, 04:30:26 PM
Show me the numbers of the new LGBT, Black, Hispanic and other voters that are surging to the Republicans?  How about some welcoming, inclusive kinds of quotes from any of the front runners?  And I'm still waiting for some sort of spin on how decidedly (we're talking double digits here) lower turnout is actually a sign of emerging Republican strength.

I'm not the least bit worried about turnout in the early primaries, straw votes, and caucuses.  Once the opposition settles on their candidate, we'll see who has depressed turnout.  I believe the 2010 model will hold.
   
First Hispanic female governor?  Susana Martinez of New Mexico - Republican
Most recently elected Hispanic Senator - Marco Rubio of Florida - Republican
Governor of Puerto Rico? Luis Fortuno, New Progressive Party of PR (caucused with Republicans when in Congress)

Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010 include:
Col. Allen West of Florida
Tim Scott of South Carolina

Both African-Americans

Self-described "Republitarian" Larry Elder - one of the most popular talk radio hosts.  Black from South-central L.A.

The times, they are a-changing

No, they aren't.  They've already changed, the only question is who gets it, and who is left behind.


But hey:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-holds-edge-over-gop-hopefuls/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-holds-edge-over-gop-hopefuls/)

keep up the good work, the Republican base is quickly becoming the most valuable players on the Obama re-election team.

And that whole - ban contraceptive thing?  Brilliance beyond compare - that's the issue you need to keep on hammering on.  Sure fire vote-getter with younger women.  You know if you nominate Santorum the current polls have you losing all 50 (or 57) states.  That will be a new record. 

Quote from: tekla on February 14, 2012, 11:26:18 PM
No, they aren't.  They've already changed, the only question is who gets it, and who is left behind.


But hey:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-holds-edge-over-gop-hopefuls/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377720-503544/poll-obama-holds-edge-over-gop-hopefuls/)

keep up the good work, the Republican base is quickly becoming the most valuable players on the Obama re-election team.

And that whole - ban contraceptive thing?  Brilliance beyond compare - that's the issue you need to keep on hammering on.  Sure fire vote-getter with younger women.  You know if you nominate Santorum the current polls have you losing all 50 (or 57) states.  That will be a new record.

There was no ban!  Only the most feeble-minded would see it that way; I mean to say, hard core Democrats.  ;)

I don't vote, they all lie. It should be illegal for them to make promises they know they can't keep.
If there was an option for the Queen to take over I'd choose that. Somehow I just think she'd rule the country for us and not for her wallet or her upper-class friends.

Only the most feeble-minded would see it that way; I mean to say, hard core Democrats.
And the only group dumber than the Democrats, your candidates (except Ron Paul).


Somehow I just think she'd rule the country for us and not for her wallet or her upper-class friends.
Based on prior experience?

You can't turn on the TV or radio news here without a story on the Republican Primaries,  and in depth analysis by local political commentators.  Quite Bizarre really. 
Have any Americans got an opinion on whether Lara Giddings should kick the Greens out of her State Cabinet over their attitude to the Pulp Mill? That's about how interested I am in it!
( We currently have a female PM, two female State Premiers, and a female Governor General by the way.)

Karen.

Well it's kind of interesting, like watching a snake eat its' own tail.  And it is a system that has managed to evolve into a kind of Byzantium via Ringling Brothers.  And if you were thinking that it's a lot like letting Alice Springs and Broome have an election and on the basis of the votes in those two places make a determination as to who was going to run in the national election you'd be right.  Hell none of 4 largest, most powerful and most influential states (Illinois, home to Chicago / New York / Texas and California) have even had their primary yet.  And you have two candidates (Santorum and Newt) who are backed by a single person in each case + Romney who's backed by 99% of the 1% and they seem to be splitting the entire mess down into very sloppy thirds with lots of bitterness and namecalling which hurts when they get to the general election.  And they are running to run against someone that really isn't even running yet, Obama.  And they are trying to get the most extreme right wing vote when everyone who looks at it knows those are not the votes you need to win the general.

> note: It looks in poll after poll, in all of them, over the last 4 years that: Republican guy =40% of the vote no matter what, Obama = 40% no matter what, and it's going to be all about getting more than half of that remaining 20%.  And that 20% is primarily people who are not represented by either party, and they are mostly financially conservative but socially liberal, while the 'Pubs are conservative in both, and the Dems' liberal in both (no one would say they are financially liberal and socially conservative but they do exist on the far end of right wing of the Republican clan).

And because the Dems don't have to do a primary deal (no one is challenging Obama) all the focus is on the Republicans who are really the Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players.  And it's a lukewarm compromise at best.  Romney represents that old guard faction of the party that's all about huge amounts of money and commerce, but he has the personal charisma of a speed bump and the same deft hand at the common touch as Marie Antoinette.  The two wing-nut factions - Tea Party and Fundamentalist Xian Evangelical Born-Agains - didn't get who they really wanted, which was St. Sara.  (for whatever reason, there can be little doubt now that had she run she would already have the nomination locked down) so they have to watch two truly creepy people fight it out and that's' dragging them very far to the right, and Mitt with them, and they are about to plunge into the abyss.  If they haven't already.

The last two weeks with the talk turning to sex, women, reproduction and all that has really set them off. 

But it is the entertainment branch of American Industry, and are you not entertained?

Been voting since '68. Am an independent but have crossed party lines.

I registered last year to vote. :)  I don't vote in MS elections and I'm thinking about abstaining from voting in the national election this year due to disliking all of the candidates. 

I am "independent" in my political views because I find the two-party system to be silly and because a lot of people only vote for someone based off of the party that person's in instead off of what that person can actually offer.

I vote and probably always will. I voted lib dem last time, I won't be doing that again in a hurry.

Accusations of fraud again by Ron Paul folks. It sounds like there was massive turnout of Ron Paul supporters at this particular Missouri caucus and the claims are the the rules of order were not followed. I'm not familiar so I can't tell. Recording devices were banned on the threat of trespassing charges but someone snuck audio.

Hijacked GOP Caucus 3.17.2012 (Audio) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrRMiePxZBU#)

And then outside, they tried to have a caucus per the "proper rules" *shrug*. Again, I don't know, but someone was arrested for trespassing the entire crowd boos. All I do know is that lots of people are getting disillusioned with the system which I tend to think of as them waking up from the slumber that the folks in power would like them to stay in. The more I witness, the more I am convinced that elections are just a ritual to make the peasants feel like we have some say when we really don't.

Arrest of Brent Strafford, St. Charles County Caucus. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRVi1m9BnXI#)

A friend of mine just encouraged me to watch Dune. There is a lot of parody of political shams. The Harkonen bothers include the ugly, brutish, clearly evil brother who is meant to set the stage for the more comely and charismatic brother, not nearly as clearly evil, meant to swoop in like a hero and save the peasants. This how I see the two parties. Lately the Republican party seems to have taken on the role of the brutish and clearly evil brother so that the attractive and charismatic Obama seems rosy by comparison. The reality is they're all awful.

Giant douche or turd sandwich. Take your pick. There, we gave you a vote, a say in your own exploitation. Now you can't complain, so just shut up and obey.

JOIN US and sign up to be able to vote there for these 870 delegates who will approve a "redress of grievences" to deliver the the congress, senate and the supreme court and the president. ..................Then if they do not respond accordingly ,,,,,, these delegates and voters will create a new political party of the people for the people by the people........ JOIN WWW.THE99DECLARATION.ORG (http://www.the99declaration.org)...... as many thousands have already done. ...... Be a delegate,,,, or at least vote for the delegates !"  "Its a shame i have heard of overdoses from drugs for some of the protestors......... That is why i support the99D www.the99declaration.org (http://www.the99declaration.org) .......which has people running as delegates to a convention to meet in Phila pa july 4th week 2012.......

Quote from: Laura91 on March 18, 2012, 03:21:44 PM
Exactly! It is 'the illusion of choice'.

I have to agree with you and the quote you quoted.

My state is not a swing state so my vote doesn't count.  My state is almost only Republican and Santorum won my state last week.

I vote!  It seems like a never ending thing in the South, but it is what it is!

Quote from: VeryGnawty on December 11, 2011, 11:58:34 AM
I don't vote.  For my reasoning why I don't vote, please refer to:  George Carlin

that will be Mr Carlin's reasoning, in fact. Can you put it in your own words at all?  8)

I think voting is important.

Also I may have already said it but I think I would have voted for Gingrich if he was the GOP nominee and seemed serious about funding the space program. He can be sinister in a hundred other ways. I'm heartbroken that we've mostly given up on space exploration.

Quote from: Felix on April 04, 2012, 10:28:45 PM
I think voting is important.

Also I may have already said it but I think I would have voted for Gingrich if he was the GOP nominee and seemed serious about funding the space program. He can be sinister in a hundred other ways. I'm heartbroken that we've mostly given up on space exploration.

I think so too.  I'm a supporter of human space exploration.  I was raised on the saying "If you don't vote, don't complain!".   
  Joelene

I don't think that space exploration is over, it's just that the manned missions were way too hard and costly for little gain.  Real rocket scientists never wanted human exploration in the first place, unmanned missions were far more cost effect and required far less oversight. 

Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
I don't think that space exploration is over, it's just that the manned missions were way too hard and costly for little gain.  Real rocket scientists never wanted human exploration in the first place, unmanned missions were far more cost effective and required far less oversight.

Three words:

Mars Climate Orbiter

Quote from: tekla on April 05, 2012, 01:40:59 AM
I don't think that space exploration is over, it's just that the manned missions were way too hard and costly for little gain.  Real rocket scientists never wanted human exploration in the first place, unmanned missions were far more cost effect and required far less oversight.

Unmanned missions are fine too. Idc whether astronauts are involved or not, as long as we're working on the problem. There's no way it's healthy to just chill in our little corner when we know there's more out there to try to understand, especially while pissing in our own bed here on this planet.

Anyway I'm not a rocket scientist, those guys are engineers and I'm not that analytical. I'm a rocket surgeon. I care for people.

I am in a quandary. ???  The Labor Party has comprehensively stuffed up Federally and at State level,  >:(but the Liberals are led by people who are patently Homophobic and Transphobic.   >:( The 3 independents have been rendered pretty well ineffectual in Canberra, and the Greens seem to be intent on wrecking the Tasmanian economy.   ::)
I think I will vote for the Sex Party again.  Maybe I can have sex with the local candidate like I did when I was living in Victoria.  At least it's something!  :laugh:

Karen.

Three words:
Mars Climate Orbiter

One word: Voyager...

But in reality Hubble (after the correction) and Chandra and Spitzer have each done more for interstellar understanding then all the maned missions combined.  People have not even begun to wrap their minds around what those photos, and the new reality they showed us, really mean.  I have a friend in NASA who says that having Hubble not work properly at first was a gift, by the time it was giving us valid data the ADD types had long forgotten it, and can't get upset about the new realities.

Quote from: Jamie D on April 05, 2012, 02:35:49 AM
Three words:

Mars Climate Orbiter

That was part of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" fleet of spacecraft that met their doom.  As with the Mars Climate Orbiter, it was the simple conversion from English measurements to metric that was not done that spelled its doom.  Also the Mars Polar Lander, the aeroshell didn't separate during entry into the Martian atmosphere.  Genesis spacecraft made it back to earth after collecting solar wind particles, but crash landed in a briny puddle in the salt flats caused by the explosive bolts for parachute deployment being inserted backwards!  Data was retrieved from some of the broken silicon wafers though.  Possibly the same problem with the Mars Polar Lander mishap.  Similar explosive bolts were used on that aeroshell as well. 
  The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.  Those L-M plant workers affectionately called that place "Fort Fumble" long before these mishaps. 

  It was the miscorrection of the mirror of the HST that really saved the space shuttle.  Four servicing missions corrected the problem and improvements were made with each mission.  This observatory was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.  The last service mission was to be scrubbed, but the popular outcry got funding plus a safety waiver to service it.  The next service mission will be done robotically to either service it or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific. 

  Voyagers 1&2 are still operating at the edge of the Solar System sending solar and stellar wind data as it goes through the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind flux meets the stellar wind of our galaxy.  The solar wind flux varies causing the changes at that boundary. 
  Joelene

or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific

Is that 'safe reentry' determined by the same crack crew fine folks who put the bolts in backwards and didn't convert English to Metric?




The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.
I'd have more respect if they returned the money they were paid to do it right.  Hell, I could have got lots of cheaper bids to screw it up.

  NASA has stated since to the manufacturers that all measurements be in metric.  The U.S. military had adopted metric measures long before that happened. 

  Having them refund the money would cause the $1M toilet to even cost more in the future!  The director was quite frank at that meeting and the future goals he stated to prevent these mishaps had come to pass.  This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 
  Joelene

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1MKYT.jpg&hash=166478f8cf2a4365f7b0c33fd52f3f8e8aee437b)

This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 

You know I used to believe you until you wrote that.  Turns out that Richard Feynman's testimony for the Challenger disaster is beyond brilliance, it's the closest NASA ever got to truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rwcbsn19c0

To ignore that simple truth is to ignore science, lots of people are techs, few really do rocket science, and you are not one of them.

Million Dollar Toilet?

I read an account by a Russian space scientist and his conversation with a NASA scientist some time ago.  The NASA scientist was describing how they developed a pen that would write in Zero G,  at a cost of several million Dollars,  and several years work. 

The Russian expressed admiration for the details of the research, and then caused shock when he said they had done it years earlier at a cost of a few Roubles.  :o  Pressed for the amazing details, his answer was' "we used a pencil."   :laugh:

Americans always go for a technological approach.  Sometimes it is best to think a bit first, about what is actually required.

Karen.

Quote from: justmeinoz on April 06, 2012, 05:11:42 AM
Pressed for the amazing details, his answer was' "we used a pencil."   :laugh:

Oh, ZING!

 "we used a pencil."

Yeah, well we don't make mistakes, so we don't need to use anything you can erase.  Actually there were lots of reasons NOT to use pencils.  One, they create dust, two they break tip and you don't want little lead tips floating around and getting into things.

Of course you could just ask them to point out where there is a Russian/Soviet Union flag on the moon.

  Using a pen was a military thing.  Nothing in the US military was done in pencil, especially logs and forms.  Those were done in blue, blue-black or black ink.  I was on watch and I had to log in hourly.  One night I had a pen with green ink in it as with the others who logged in earlier that night.  A Navy brat who was in my shore unit at the time saw this and really read me the riot act.  I told her that this is what I had to write with.  She saw the other entries and went back into her shop and got me a black pen. 
  As for loose pencil points, graphite dust and the other things.  The US spacecraft controls are more sensitive to floating debris.  The Russian capsules were made with more simpler and robust items inside.  The same with their military aircraft.  Their jet aircraft can land in a field as the western types cannot without incurring damage.  This is due to the pavement on their airstrips is not as good and there is a heaving of the soil during winters there. 
  Also on the shuttle there was debris floating around.  I saw a video of the first docking to the old MIR station and dander was seen floating in the shaft of sunlight.  The US Mercury capsules had some loose screws floating around.  The capsule that Gus Grissom rode in that was recovered from the bottom of the Atlantic was found to have a roll of Mercury dimes plus some cigarette butts left by the assemblers.  I saw this capsule when it toured in town. 
  Joelene

  P. S. Thumbs up for the Robamney poster! 

Quote from: Joelene9 on April 05, 2012, 02:44:53 PM
  That was part of the "Faster, Better, Cheaper" fleet of spacecraft that met their doom.  As with the Mars Climate Orbiter, it was the simple conversion from English measurements to metric that was not done that spelled its doom.  Also the Mars Polar Lander, the aeroshell didn't separate during entry into the Martian atmosphere.  Genesis spacecraft made it back to earth after collecting solar wind particles, but crash landed in a briny puddle in the salt flats caused by the explosive bolts for parachute deployment being inserted backwards!  Data was retrieved from some of the broken silicon wafers though.  Possibly the same problem with the Mars Polar Lander mishap.  Similar explosive bolts were used on that aeroshell as well. 
  The director of the Lockheed Martin Denver plant came to our club meeting with hat in hand and apologized for these mishaps shortly after they happened and frankly explained these mishaps.  That fellow has got my respect.  Those L-M plant workers affectionately called that place "Fort Fumble" long before these mishaps. 

  It was the miscorrection of the mirror of the HST that really saved the space shuttle.  Four servicing missions corrected the problem and improvements were made with each mission.  This observatory was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.  The last service mission was to be scrubbed, but the popular outcry got funding plus a safety waiver to service it.  The next service mission will be done robotically to either service it or drag it down for a safe reentry over the Pacific. 

  Voyagers 1&2 are still operating at the edge of the Solar System sending solar and stellar wind data as it goes through the heliopause, the boundary where the solar wind flux meets the stellar wind of our galaxy.  The solar wind flux varies causing the changes at that boundary. 
  Joelene

Good recap.

The contention, however, was, unmanned missions were far more cost effective and required far less oversight.

The Mars [Climate Orbiter] Project cost $193.1 million for spacecraft development, $125 million for the orbiter, $202.6 for the lander, $91.7 million for the launch, and $42.8 million for mission operations.

That's over $600 million down the drain because of lack of effective oversight.

Quote from: tekla on April 06, 2012, 12:31:28 AM
This was a better explanation than NASA had after the investigations of the Challenger and Columbia disasters. 

You know I used to believe you until you wrote that.  Turns out that Richard Feynman's testimony for the Challenger disaster is beyond brilliance, it's the closest NASA ever got to truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rwcbsn19c0

To ignore that simple truth is to ignore science, lots of people are techs, few really do rocket science, and you are not one of them.

Prof. Feynman was a genius who cut to the chase.  NASA management has never been particularly astute.

But you are being unnecessarily harsh.

Quote from: dalebert on April 05, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1MKYT.jpg&hash=166478f8cf2a4365f7b0c33fd52f3f8e8aee437b)

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow