Christopher Castillo Arrested After Threatening To Kill Obama On Facebook

[GiancarloC]

BP, is this possible plagiarism? Did he put something from that into his post? Or am I mistaken?

MattClaimer, it's nice and all that ones come in here and beats their chest about how wrong the system is, but please have an alternate suggestion. My suggestion has always been a system of proportional representation with greater numbers of political parties. This could balance any issue with eliminating the electoral college. A nation like Germany is a federal system much like the United States but its political system is centered more around the political parties.

So no. I don't agree with going with the popular vote. But I also don't agree with how the electoral college is set up.

How does Germany's system work? It's known for its efficiency, despite there being more than two political parties. So the idea that having more than two political parties would hinder efficiency is a wrong one. Not every multiparty system is like that in Italy.

And looking at America's political process, bills take a lot longer than they do in Germany. So the two party system isn't helping efficiency when both parties are at each others throats. A party like the Green Party would certainly be able to gain a stronger foothold (like it has in Germany obtaining almost 11% of the seats in the Bundestag in the last federal election in 2009).

German Greens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_green_party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...election,_2009

http://www.expatica.com/de/essential...s--_14725.html

in contrast to many countries, Germans do not elect their leaders directly, but instead vote for parties.

The leader is then chosen by the coalition that holds the majority in the Bundestag, as the lower house of parliament is known.

The German election system itself is extremely complex and combines a classic first-past-the-post system with proportional representation.

Each person casts two votes on a single ballot paper.

In the first vote, people elect their chosen candidate in their electoral district to the Bundestag and the winner takes up the district's seat.

In the second vote, people choose their preferred party from some 29 parties participating in the election by a complex system of proportional representation.

The system works as follows. In each of Germany's 16 states, parties draw up "state lists".

Parties are awarded a certain number of seats per state depending on the proportion of votes they receive.

This is an article from a few years ago.

Every system has its pros and cons... but this one even with its coalition process seems to work quite well and effectively. Not one party controls the entire government. Some argue it gives too much power to political parties... and others may argue it centers too much power on population centers... but I argue it's the best system out there.

Also before one comes at me about the popular vote, most western countries don't even go by that. They use proportional representation which is something different.

[MattClaimer]

BP, is this possible plagiarism? Did he put something from that into his post? Or am I mistaken?

MattClaimer, it's nice and all that ones come in here and beats their chest about how wrong the system is, but please have an alternate suggestion. My suggestion has always been a system of proportional representation with greater numbers of political parties. This could balance any issue with eliminating the electoral college. A nation like Germany is a federal system much like the United States but its political system is centered more around the political parties.

So no. I don't agree with going with the popular vote. But I also don't agree with how the electoral college is set up.

How does Germany's system work? It's known for its efficiency, despite there being more than two political parties. So the idea that having more than two political parties would hinder efficiency is a wrong one. Not every multiparty system is like that in Italy.

And looking at America's political process, bills take a lot longer than they do in Germany. So the two party system isn't helping efficiency when both parties are at each others throats. A party like the Green Party would certainly be able to gain a stronger foothold (like it has in Germany obtaining almost 11% of the seats in the Bundestag in the last federal election in 2009).

German Greens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_green_party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_...election,_2009

http://www.expatica.com/de/essential...s--_14725.html



This is an article from a few years ago.

Every system has its pros and cons... but this one even with its coalition process seems to work quite well and effectively. Not one party controls the entire government. Some argue it gives too much power to political parties... and others may argue it centers too much power on population centers... but I argue it's the best system out there.

Also before one comes at me about the popular vote, most western countries don't even go by that. They use proportional representation which is something different.

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

[Kulindahr]

Almost... If the rule went that the two electoral votes go with the overall winner but the remainder are split according to pop vote then it would open up the nation for the two parties to become pertinent in fifty states instead of eight. Yet you would still end up with a decisive winner based off electoral college math.

You would see republicans trying to earn that portion of California and New York that is red but is silent every election because of the current system.

Fifty? No, not when a dozen states out there still have fewer combined votes than on of the big ones. It might make thirty of them important, though.

[JayHawk]

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

Your point of view is valid but the other two are correct in that citing soruces is a requirement if you are to post others works.... that's all they need have said.

[Kulindahr]

I disagree, and so do a majority of others. Going with a popular vote would better represent the people's will.

A presidential election is not supposed to "represent the people's will". That would be a perversion of the system of checks and balances.

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

LOL

No. If it was by popular vote, candidates would only go to where there are lots of votes. Since the dozen least populous states have fewer people than the New York metropolitan area, no candidate would ever go to any of them. We'd end up with what Oregon has new: the only people represented in the government are those in the cities.

The EC we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

Care to point me to the amendment that changed the Electoral College?

In the spirit of checks and balances the Framers wanted, the reform the EC needs is to hand every state another electoral vote, maybe two.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states.

You're not going to get rid of the EC because the less populous states don't want to become slaves to the desires of the more populous. That's why the system we have was put in place: it's a check on the power of the populous states, balancing it with a bit of extra power awarded to the small.

[Kulindahr]

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

And if you'll notice what I said originally - that we need to realize there ARE OTHER PARTIES that should be recognized. More parties than just the two current corrupted ones, dems and reps.

Any time it's not your own words, you're expected to tell us so. If it came in an e-mail from a friend, preface it that way; preferably, put it in a quote box.

[JayHawk]

Fifty? No, not when a dozen states out there still have fewer combined votes than on of the big ones. It might make thirty of them important, though.

Perhaps but it would make a helluva a lot more viable than are considered viable currently... plus after the math was worked out and areas of the country staked out as safe or movable then the swing electoral vote or two could come from any state.... why? Because all states have more than the two allotted based on each member of the house and senate equally a vote.

The difficulty comes in how to proportion 44.9% versus 44..7% of the vote. SO in a small state with three votes and since both round down... how then do you break the tie... it would end in innumerable arguments... and it is also unlikely all states would go for it at once and depending on the turns it would be unbalanced for one party causing some states to shift back to winner take all situations...

[JayHawk]

You're not going to get rid of the EC because the less populous states don't want to become slaves to the desires of the more populous. That's why the system we have was put in place: it's a check on the power of the populous states, balancing it with a bit of extra power awarded to the small.

That and the founders were terrified that a populist ideologue would destroy the country by riding to power on the popular vote... not the intention at all of the founders... who did include the electors in the constitution but not the electoral college.

[GiancarloC]

I never claimed that I penned anything. I included info from a piece that was sent to me in email by someone else on this same subject. Have no idea where he got it from originally. I didn't comment to offer alternate suggestions - I commented to state an example of how and why the system is screwed up and that it needs to be fixed - I don't know exactly what that fix would be, but something that better represents what the people want and not what select groups want, groups who can be bought, influenced, charmed, etc. and groups who throw enough money at the right parties and connections. Groups who threaten extortion, blackmail, calling the race card, etc. The current corrupt system needs to be flushed, it is too easily manipulated and controlled.

As others have said, one needs to cite where they got it from and put it in a quote tag... even if it was just from an email. And it's easy to say the system is screwed up, but failing to provide a viable alternative isn't helping your case.

[Kulindahr]

That and the founders were terrified that a populist ideologue would destroy the country by riding to power on the popular vote... not the intention at all of the founders... who did include the electors in the constitution but not the electoral college.

Since the electors are supposed to gather, they did include the electoral college, which at root means "gathering of electors".

[Kulindahr]

As others have said, one needs to cite where they got it from and put it in a quote tag... even if it was just from an email. And it's easy to say the system is screwed up, but failing to provide a viable alternative isn't helping your case.

Doesn't take long, either; I've often start a post with "A friend sent me this in an email"....

then Opinterph butts in and posts the actual source on the web.

[GiancarloC]

Doesn't take long, either; I've often start a post with "A friend sent me this in an email"....

then Opinterph butts in and posts the actual source on the web.

He's pretty good at that... I wonder if he has the software that some professors have in detecting plagiarism... it's basically why some of my professors (esp in grad school) wanted big papers via email or on disk instead of hard copy. Or he could just be putting portions into google search... I dunno lol.

Any thoughts on Germany's system? It puts more emphasis on political parties... it's a pretty efficient system they have. The interesting thing is Merkel is personally popular, but her political parties aren't... so her government could fall if they lose a majority in the next election.

[Laufey]

I think it's a big flaw that the president in the US doesn't always have majority of congress behind him.

In most countries the system is built so the head of the government (usually prime minister) doesn't get in office unless he has the parliament behind him.

When you have different people behind the presidency and the congress you can get stuck in political arguments and not be able to move forward on cases where change is needed. The whole tax changes now in the US is a good example.

[Kulindahr]

He's pretty good at that... I wonder if he has the software that some professors have in detecting plagiarism... it's basically why some of my professors (esp in grad school) wanted big papers via email or on disk instead of hard copy. Or he could just be putting portions into google search... I dunno lol.

Any thoughts on Germany's system? It puts more emphasis on political parties... it's a pretty efficient system they have. The interesting thing is Merkel is personally popular, but her political parties aren't... so her government could fall if they lose a majority in the next election.

I decided some time ago that representation in the House should be proportional within each state delegation; beyond that I'd leave things alone.

[MisterMajestic]

Similar to this story...I think it was NPR or FOX radio that reported a story about a 26yr Police Veteran in jacksonville, Florida claiming he'd Kill Obama if someone hired/asked him to....The idiot sadi it at some Cop-meeting and got busted....

He's not being charged for threatening the President in public...He was planning on retiring early so the Force is letting him walk sooner than later....Officers stick together...

Shouldnt the FBI get involved? Sounds strange to me...

[Kulindahr]

^
Cops are developing the clannishness that gave us the Hatfields and McCoys, where right and wrong don't matter, you just close ranks. It's a form of corruption that lends itself to an easy flip to a police state.

[07JG85]

I think it's a big flaw that the president in the US doesn't always have majority of congress behind him.

In most countries the system is built so the head of the government (usually prime minister) doesn't get in office unless he has the parliament behind him.

When you have different people behind the presidency and the congress you can get stuck in political arguments and not be able to move forward on cases where change is needed. The whole tax changes now in the US is a good example.

And that's the best part. Giving the president the power to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, is a bad thing. I'm thankful for having a congress that can tell the president to go pound sand. Yes, sometimes things don't get accomplished, but that's not always a bad thing. I'd rather have them bickering back and forth than just passing through every stupid idea that every president comes up with. The huge mess that is Obamacare, is a good example of what happens when a congress just backs the president.


Oh, and there's no point in defending your party. The politicians that you elect, don't give a damn about you personally. They care about saying what they have to say to get elected. Obama likes gay people? Pshhh, yeah right!


Democrats are just as bad as republicans. They threaten each other with death all the time. The death threats on Obama are brought up so often, why? Because of his race? Yeah, probably. It's the only logical reason considering every president in the history of the US has had many, many, threats made on their lives. And some even paid for it with it, but why is it such a big deal with this president?.....

Man, I love being an independent! Sitting back watching everybody defend somebody based on a party affiliation(aka nothing). People should vote for a president based on how he will be for the country. Remember the 1980 and 84 elections? When people crossed the party lines to vote for someone that they thought was best for the country. Winner takes 49 states, 525 of the 538 EC votes, and 58.8% of the pop vote. That's how it should be. Unfortunately, I doubt something like that will ever happen again. With all the people now that just will not vote for someone because they have a R next to their name and vice versa. Sad, really.

[GiancarloC]

The huge mess that is Obamacare, is a good example of what happens when a congress just backs the president.

Obama care is a huge mess? Since when? A republican actually implemented it before Obama was even President by the way... he ran for President and lied about his record. And Obamacare is not a mess at all... it's a small, if inadequate step in the right direction. Getting people health care who need it the most. It's not a perfect solution however.

Obama likes gay people? Pshhh, yeah right!

Psshhh... why don't you prove he doesn't? He seems to be genuine enough.

Democrats are just as bad as republicans. They threaten each other with death all the time.

Utter nonsense. Some democrats should shut up from time to time, but the republicans are going to completely new lows. And show me where Democrats threaten the other side with death.

It's the only logical reason considering every president in the history of the US has had many, many, threats made on their lives. And some even paid for it with it, but why is it such a big deal with this president?.....

Obama has received far many more threats than many prior Presidents including Bush and Clinton. Why is it a big deal? BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

Man, I love being an independent! Sitting back watching everybody defend somebody based on a party affiliation(aka nothing). People should vote for a president based on how he will be for the country. Remember the 1980 and 84 elections? When people crossed the party lines to vote for someone that they thought was best for the country.

LOL. About half of independents voted for Obama. But that's a nice try really. The 1980 and 1984 elections were disastrous for this country in the very least. Reagan fucked over this country in more ways people can imagine. I'm non-partisan too... but I know Obama is definitely the right man for the job.

Winner takes 49 states, 525 of the 538 EC votes, and 58.8% of the pop vote. That's how it should be. Unfortunately, I doubt something like that will ever happen again. With all the people now that just will not vote for someone because they have a R next to their name and vice versa. Sad, really.

That's because of how far right the republican party and certain states have gone. And many people won't vote for someone with an R next to their name because they represent negativity and idiocy.

[07JG85]

Obama care is a huge mess? Since when? A republican actually implemented it before Obama was even President by the way... he ran for President and lied about his record. And Obamacare is not a mess at all... it's a small, if inadequate step in the right direction. Getting people health care who need it the most. It's not a perfect solution however.

I'm not going to get involved in a back-and-forth about Obamacare. I will say I don't like how it passed through Congress, and the issues with the SCOTUS afterwards. I don't care what party was involved with it, and I'm not saying it's bad because Democrats had something to do with it. And people will/do disagree with me about it.

Psshhh... why don't you prove he doesn't? He seems to be genuine enough.

He seems to be genuine enough because he wanted to be president. It's not just him, it's most politicians saying what they must to be elected. Just search for the issue before he became president, or before he was running for the office.

Utter nonsense. Some democrats should shut up from time to time, but the republicans are going to completely new lows. And show me where Democrats threaten the other side with death.

This statement I made was more for the topic of the thread, and some responses stating that it's the Republicans that are evil, and make the death threats(not a quote). This had nothing to do with issues, or even their bickering. And for the death threats, I wasn't referring to political parties. I was referring to individuals. Meaning, someone, who is a Democrat, has made a threat towards a president before.

Obama has received far many more threats than many prior Presidents including Bush and Clinton. Why is it a big deal? BECAUSE IT MATTERS.

Yes, obviously it matters! My question was why does it matter more for this president than previous presidents? Why does the media make every single threat towards Obama, a headliner? I was asking a question that I feel I answered earlier. Because of his race. As with other presidents, threats come in every single day, but the media never covered all these threats the way they do with this president. I'm just saying that the level of concern is equal for any president. Race should mean nothing, but unfortunately, it does.

LOL. About half of independents voted for Obama. But that's a nice try really. The 1980 and 1984 elections were disastrous for this country in the very least. Reagan fucked over this country in more ways people can imagine. I'm non-partisan too... but I know Obama is definitely the right man for the job.

I know. I said nothing about independents voting for Obama, or anyone else. Just said it's nice being an independent and watching people who belong to a party, defend people of that party, for that reason alone.(Actually, it sucks.) I didn't bring up the 80 and 84 elections to defend Reagan. I only mentioned it because it was a time when people came together and voted for someone simply because they liked him, and not because of the party he did, or didn't, represent. Meaning, I don't think something like that will happen again any time soon, due to how divided this country is, and how people will just stick to a party no matter what.

That's because of how far right the republican party and certain states have gone. And many people won't vote for someone with an R next to their name because they represent negativity and idiocy.

Yeah, Im sure that's true with some people. But in this day and age, it's more because the guy/gal has a D or a R next to their name.



Responses in red. I hope that worked! lol

[MisterMajestic]

I find it comical when some people say Obama decided to be FOR Gay Marriage because it boost his chances of being re-elected....LOL...Yeah, right....

I honestly believe that Obama felt if he was gonna be in office only 1 term he wanted to be on the Right side of History and wanted his Legacy to show that he stopped the Economy from Bleeding, he gave the orders to Find & Kill Osama, Passed Womens equal Pay Act, Implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood arrivals program that includes a 2yr grace period, Ended the war in Iraq, passed Historical Affordable Health care, Ended DADT, Set up an End-date in Afghanistan, Stopped defending DOMA in the courts, and became the First sitting President to acknowledge his support for Gay Marriage....WOW and wow...

Hate'em or Crticize'em all you want to but All of this would have been a part of his 1-term Legacy even if a few things would have been washed away or watered down by Romney...

Now that we've given him a 2nd-term I can't wait to see what he accomplishes next..The question is can he accomplish even MORE in his 2nd-term or will the window of opportunity close on him too FAST?

[chance1]

^ how do u explain the Biden comments on meet the press

That directly preceded Obama's epiphany

And one mans "accomplishments" is another's problems

[MystikWizard]

For every one nutcase that we catch, I worry that we miss three more.

That's why you have to make an example out of the ones you do catch and make sure the consequences are blasted around the media.

What was the end result of this instance?