A timely oldie by John Wilkins, on 2012 election

[Peter Nyikos]

People like me, who looked on the whole 2016 Presidential campaign with
a sinking feeling about whatever the outcome would be, might get a good
chuckle from the following oldie but goodie by John Wilkins.

______________________begin included post_____________________

Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 6:44 pm, Mitchell Coffey <mitchell.cof...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Now that iaoua iaoua has galloped off to his long-delayed doom, and we
> > have little left for entertainment, I was wondering if any of you
> > foreign types have watched any of the Republican debates. Any
> > comments? See what we're up against.
>
> Europeans all thing the American political system is insane. No doubt
> everyone's political system looks crazy from the outside; but your's
> seems to have special properties.
>
> - the Republican's are trying to choose between the canidate
> most likely to beat Obama and one with the correct political opionions
>
> - people care what Iowa thinks
>
> - having you ex-wife slag you off boosts your ratings (that
> actually makes sense)
>
> Havn't been watching the debates,anything interesting?

*That's* what you think is insane? How about having a public election
for political candidates in a party? How about a series of preselection
public elections, with no bar to party membership? How about electing
officials to elect the executive? How about having a state based
electoral administration, with no real oversight as to gerrymandering,
registration bars, or vote counting? How about having two extreme right
wing parties and no left? How about the trope that you can only reduce
taxes when the nation is broke and spending more on wars than it needs
to spend on education and health? How about... oh, I can't be bothered;
it's too insane. The GOP debates are only an expression of the
insanities (and inanities) of US politics.

I think the Rest of the World should invade the US, force it to undergo
regime change, and become democratic.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

======================== end of post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/8o1LJYr4PuI/bqSj-xZbjpMJ
Subject: Re: OT: So What You Foreigners Think of Democracy at Work?
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:58:38 +1100
Message-ID: <1kebd53.nlcziip6xs6bN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>


Alas, John is no longer active [1], and I miss him. Also gone are Nick
Keighley [2], to whom John was replying; and posting on the same
NGG page, we see other departed regulars: Vend [3], Frank J [4],
and Free Lunch [5]. Burning question: are there enough new people
in talk.origins to replace these former regulars?


[1] John was last seen here in March 2015. He is only archived back to 2011
in NGG, but that is obviously because he changed his e-mail address. He goes
all the way back to the 1990's.

[2] Nick Keighley last posted in July 2015;
the archive on him in NGG goes back to 2004.

[3] Vend was last seen June 2013; the archive on him goes back to 2006,
and shows him doing at least 100 posts every month of 2007. But in
subsequent years his posts to t.o. reduced to a trickle.

[4] Frank J last posted in March 2014; posts were down to a trickle
a year earlier. The archive on him goes back to Jan 2010; he was
very active for the next three years.

[5] Free Lunch last posted feb 2015, goes back to 2007; one 2007 post
was in reply to Zoe, who quit in 2007]

Well, there is always hope that some of these former regulars
might return. After all, I quit Usenet in mid-2001 and only
returned to talk.origins six years ago.

Peter Nyikos

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

An updated vesrion of a leeter ttat has been around for a long time;

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/letter-of-queen-elizabeth-ii-to-american-people/

bit.ly/2g6p8pD

"In light of your tendency to propose uncivilized people for public
office who masquerade as the leader of the world, and thus your
tendency to elect completely incompetent Presidents who then want to
rule the world when you cannot govern yourselves, we hereby give
notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.
Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical
duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories except
Arkansas, which she does not fancy and will confine the Clintons to
its borders to spare the rest of the world from their shenanigans
including their pretend charity that launders money for their
escapades.

Your new Prime Minister, Theresa May, will appoint a Governor for
America without the need for further elections since you cannot manage
to select suitable candidates in any event. Furthermore, Congress and
the Senate will be disbanded in a fortnight and given bus passes for
the ride home, for their private jet privileges will be revoked. Given
they do nothing anyhow other than raise taxes, I terribly doubt that
any of you will notice the change.

Whilst there will no longer be any need for any elections and your old
slogan of “no taxation without representation” was a catchy phrase,
your Congress never represented you anyway so that was a meaningless
gesture with no substance confirming you are too foolish to govern
yourselves no less the world. Your debt is beyond any capacity of
being repaid and your politicians have no intention of ever paying off
the debt anyway yet borrow year after year without explanation. Mr.
Thomas Jefferson, who we tried to hang for treason but could not catch
him to impose the king’s justice, was at least correct in saying that
your debt forces people to be taxed for generations before and are
thus subjected to “no taxation without representation” since they were
not even alive.

Since your election has put forth a criminal and a vulgarian, you
leave me no choice but to revoke your independence and reassert our
right to manage our former colony. This is the international precedent
of China with Tibet and Russia with Ukraine. Therefore, we are
justified in this action forthwith given there is international
precedence for this decree.

You will learn to now say “God save the Queen.”

Your Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II

House of Windsor"

[jillery]

Did you send a copy to the Irish Parliament as well?
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2016 14:12:35 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

I'm just wondering why I didn't see it in 1976, 1992 or
2008, if it's "been around for a long time".
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 11:37:04 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Egad, was there any Democratic President you approved? Was there any
Republican President you disapproved?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2016 14:38:53 -0500, the following appeared

Yep. Truman and Kennedy come to mind, and to some extent
FDR. Also, the four "Democratic Republican" presidents.

> Was there any
>Republican President you disapproved?

Yep. Hoover and Nixon come to mind.

How about you, with the parties reversed?

[jillery]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 11:24:40 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

So your list should have included 1968 and 1928, if only to appear
less partisan.

>How about you, with the parties reversed?

If only I had suggested such a partisan list.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 16:45:33 -0500, the following appeared

Mea maxima culpa; hairshirt on order. In my
no-doubt-insufficient defense, I was responding to an
obviously partisan post *with* a partisan post, which I
believe is still allowed when politics infests rational
discussions. Perhaps just shaking my head in pity and
ignoring it would, in hindsight, have been better...

But since I answered your questions regarding approval and
disapproval, is that issue now closed?

>>How about you, with the parties reversed?
>
>
>If only I had suggested such a partisan list.

OK; thought you might be willing to share.

[jillery]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 10:53:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Yes, that issue is closed, but you opened another one with your silly
snark. Assuming you refer above to my original question, how does
"Did you send a copy to the Irish Parliament as well?" qualify as
partisan? Alternately, if you refer above to my reply to you, how
does your reply "I'm just wondering why I didn't see it in 1976, 1992
or 2008, if it's "been around for a long time" *not* qualify as
partisan?

>>>How about you, with the parties reversed?
>>
>>
>>If only I had suggested such a partisan list.
>
>OK; thought you might be willing to share.

I'm still choking on your segue.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:39:56 -0500, the following appeared

It wasn't "snark", per se; it was intended to be a humorous
comment on the fervor with which some argue about politics,
and specifically about political positions. So, mildly
snarky at most.

> Assuming you refer above to my original question, how does
>"Did you send a copy to the Irish Parliament as well?" qualify as
>partisan?

I referred originally above to AAQ's partisan (sort of,
although it does refer to one candidate as a "criminal";
obviously not the winner) OP, and to my partisan response. I
confess I have no idea why the Irish Parliament in
particular might be significant, since I don't follow Irish
politics, but my response to you addressed your specific
question regarding my approval and disapproval of
Presidents.

> Alternately, if you refer above to my reply to you, how
>does your reply "I'm just wondering why I didn't see it in 1976, 1992
>or 2008, if it's "been around for a long time" *not* qualify as
>partisan?

It was; I even said so. It was also a response to the
content of the OP, not to anything you posted.

>>>>How about you, with the parties reversed?
>>>
>>>
>>>If only I had suggested such a partisan list.
>>
>>OK; thought you might be willing to share.
>
>
>I'm still choking on your segue.


--

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 11:15:49 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Since you expressed ignorance of a relevant point, it's not about
politics, but history. The Irish Parliament shares a similar (but not
identical) relationship to the British Queen as does the U.S.
Congress, in that both are political bodies of nations once claimed by
the Crown, a relationship referred to in AAQ's post.

Of course, for a period of time the Sun never set on the British
Empire, so a number of nations share similar relationships. However,
IIRC AAQ has a personal association with Ireland, perhaps as a
resident or citizen or native-born or somesuch. I assumed that was
common knowledge among T.O. regulars.

Since you say you intended your reply to me to refer instead to AAQ's
comment, I am now totally confused how those years you cited relate to
it. But no matter. The intent of my comment to you was to inform you
that I caught what I thought was an obvious reference to Democratic
U.S. presidents. I regret any error.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 14:36:35 -0500, the following appeared

OK.

>Of course, for a period of time the Sun never set on the British
>Empire, so a number of nations share similar relationships. However,
>IIRC AAQ has a personal association with Ireland, perhaps as a
>resident or citizen or native-born or somesuch. I assumed that was
>common knowledge among T.O. regulars.

I'm familiar with the history of Ireland vis-a-vis the
British. I just didn't see the relevance, other than some
similarity in cases, to what I perceived as the *intent* of
the OP, which seemed quite partisan to me.

>Since you say you intended your reply to me to refer instead to AAQ's
>comment,

Actually, if you'll re-read my first post, it was a comment
on the OP rather than a reply to you, sort of a "Yeah, and
how 'bout...?" comment. If I'd been responding directly to
what you posted it would have been something like "I don't
see the relevance to the OP; please explain what you meant".

> I am now totally confused how those years you cited relate to
>it. But no matter. The intent of my comment to you was to inform you
>that I caught what I thought was an obvious reference to Democratic
>U.S. presidents.

Oh, it certainly was, just as I thought AAQ's post an
obvious reference to the current President-elect; actually,
to *both* candidates, but I chose to comment on the
inference to the actual winner.

> I regret any error.

As do I; errors tend to creep in when there are multiple
possible references to posts, something which doesn't
usually happen in actual conversation which, perhaps
regrettably, I tend to treat discussions in Usenet as.

If that makes any sense...

[AlwaysAskingQuestions]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 11:20:47 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
[...]

>I'm familiar with the history of Ireland vis-a-vis the
>British. I just didn't see the relevance, other than some
>similarity in cases, to what I perceived as the *intent* of
>the OP, which seemed quite partisan to me.

Your sense of humor has gone AWOL ?

[jillery]

Perhaps it went to Mass with your sense of humor?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 23:04:13 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by AlwaysAskingQuestions
<alwaysaski...@gmail.com>:

Not at all; I though it was hilarious. But then, to me the
difference between the main candidates was one of degree and
individual emphasis; I would have preferred NOTA (None Of
The Above), and wish that were a universal ballot option
with positive effect.