Someone keeps switching the channel.

 

What US law is that?

He's referring to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (and notice that the very title of the act mentions "corrupt" practices, not "cultural" practices).

The act basically recognizes that, in some countries, you can't do business (personally and/or professionally) without paying bribes to government officials in order to get them to do a job that they are already bound to perform. So the act makes a distinction between a "bribe", which involves getting a government official to do something improper, and a "grease payment", which involves getting a government official to simply do their proper job in the first place. But it also requires that the "grease payment" be permissible under the written laws of that country, which they often are not. Not only does this allow you to conduct business in such countries, but it also allows you to openly document such payments for financial purposes such as business expenses.

 

How ignorant are you? Your example was a foreign country - is your DMV in a foreign country?

Increasingly that is a relevant question -- or rather if the DMV is in a country that I can still recognize.

 

In that case, I'll keep my mouth shut and take the 5th.

 

Did anyone see that fellow that won the brexit, address the yahoos in brussels?

He stood up and said you all laughed at me earlier, but I don't hear anyone laughing now.

It was great to see.

An actual male of the species.

 

Did anyone see that fellow that won the brexit, address the yahoos in brussels?

He stood up and said you all laughed at me earlier, but I don't hear anyone laughing now.

It was great to see.

An actual male of the species.

As long as later we do not have to see those who voted to leave (or remain, for the case) crying with bitter tears.

 

He's referring to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (and notice that the very title of the act mentions "corrupt" practices, not "cultural" practices).

Not only does this allow you to conduct business in such countries, but it also allows you to openly document such payments for financial purposes such as business expenses.

Some countries like the UK have no current bribery exemption for facilitation payments, no wonder their empire has collapsed. I would expect to see that changed under the new leadership.

 

I find the following aspects wholly unacceptable :

Unable to deport foreign criminals, rapists and murderers because of Brussels court of human rights overriding UK courts.

Open borders where criminals and terrorists are free to come and go on false documentation seemingly at will.

Unlimited and uncontrolled immigration, the majority from poorer EU countries, simply to take advantage of our over generous benefits system.

Can we rely on our government to address any of the above – unlikely.

Will the above improve if we stay part of the EU – very unlikely.

I didn't know California was part of the EU.

 

For those who can't take it anymore, here are some places to think about. See some you like?
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/010416/10-best-countries-retire-2016.asp

 

Sure, there are problems to be solved,

There are problems with the current system where people are illegally voting. There are people who don't think you should show a state issued photo id when you show up.

Voter apathy exists and has existed for many years now.

I think that the framers of the constitution would agree with me, and that if travel and communication had been as easy in their day as it is now, they would have created a far different government than they did.

I think a reading of the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers would provide some enlightment.

The Connecticut compromise, was all about political power and who "should" have it.

 

Sure, there are problems to be solved, but our present system is rife with problems and the people who should be solving them are actually the ones creating most of them. Politicians make decisions that are in their own best interests and their best interests almost never coincide with those of their constituents.

I believe that the technology and security issues could be overcome. I believe that the public would take more interest in the issues if they thought their vote actually made a difference. I believe that power should reside with the people, not with the government. I believe that congress involves itself in far too many issues and creates far too many bills. I believe that policy decisions should be made at the lowest level of government possible. I think that the framers of the constitution would agree with me, and that if travel and communication had been as easy in their day as it is now, they would have created a far different government than they did. If you believe otherwise, that's just as well because the establishment is so entrenched that any significant change in the system is doomed at conception.

What possible way can you overcome the security issue of someone being extorted to vote a particular way by someone else standing behind them while they vote?

As for people thinking that their vote doesn't make a difference, there have been numerous races at all levels that have been so close that a tiny number of voters that stayed home could have changed the outcome. In Wyoming a few years back a state-wide race (it might have been for Senator, but I'm not sure) ended in a tie, even after a recount, and so the election was literally decided by the toss of a coin. I hope all the people that sat out that election and ended up with the person they didn't want took a long, hard look in the mirror that night.

As for the Framers setting up a pure democracy if travel and communication had been easier, I don't think so at all. Read the papers that were written at the time debating the issues and it becomes pretty clear that these were not in any way driving issues. A representative republican form of government was set up largely for the explicit reason of avoiding the potential for tyranny by the majority that a pure democracy might lead to. For instance, Federalist (10) goes to some length to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a representative republic over a pure democracy, without once even hinting at travel and communication issues as being any factor at all.

 

What possible way can you overcome the security issue of someone being extorted to vote a particular way by someone else standing behind them while they vote?

In exactly the same ways that I prevent someone from coming in my home, stealing my possessions, and raping my wife.

As for people thinking that their vote doesn't make a difference, there have been numerous races at all levels that have been so close that a tiny number of voters that stayed home could have changed the outcome. In Wyoming a few years back a state-wide race (it might have been for Senator, but I'm not sure) ended in a tie, even after a recount, and so the election was literally decided by the toss of a coin. I hope all the people that sat out that election and ended up with the person they didn't want took a long, hard look in the mirror that night.

I agree with that completely. People are apathetic because they don't think their vote counts, and in most cases they are correct because their "representatives" don't reflect their preferences. Politicians have no incentive to do anything that would deprive them of their spot at the trough.

As for the Framers setting up a pure democracy if travel and communication had been easier, I don't think so at all. Read the papers that were written at the time debating the issues and it becomes pretty clear that these were not in any way driving issues. A representative republican form of government was set up largely for the explicit reason of avoiding the potential for tyranny by the majority that a pure democracy might lead to. For instance, Federalist (10) goes to some length to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a representative republic over a pure democracy, without once even hinting at travel and communication issues as being any factor at all.

The framers did not have the option of public referenda. Why would they consider and discuss doing something that was, at the time, completely impossible?

 

The framers were well aware that lies travel faster than truth, regardless of the medium, and gave us a system designed to compensate for that. It still works. Perfect? No. But the best we have.

 

The framers were well aware that lies travel faster than truth, regardless of the medium, and gave us a system designed to compensate for that. It still works. Perfect? No. But the best we have.

And it's the best we will ever have unless we the people improve it.

 

People are apathetic because they don't think their vote counts...

I don't believe this for a second.

People are apathetic because their vote has no impact on whether Kim Kardashian will be on TV tonight.

 

Why do so many engineers/technical people here, who I assume are responsible for various levels of innovation and forward thinking, look back at the constitution as a "perfect document" and complain about any amendments made since the bill-of-rights was added as ruining our country?

Do politicians look at scientific discoveries from the 1700s and complain about all of the changes made since then? If they did, we could log into the off-topic section of the AllAboutConstitutions.com website and read how they complain about innovations in touchScreens, keyboards, ball-point pens, all the way back to the best way to trim a quill for writing a Declaration of Independence.

This thread has definitely taught me why a certain slogan works so well when it makes no sense at all.

 

I don't believe this for a second.

People are apathetic because their vote has no impact on whether Kim Kardashian will be on TV tonight.

Or maybe they spend so much time on the Kardashians, or the NBA, or their electronics hobby, or their drugs, or their job, or their adulterous affair, or whatever, because they see so much corruption in the world, and feel helpless to do anything about it.

 

Or maybe they spend so much time on the Kardashians, or the NBA, or their electronics hobby, or their drugs, or their job, or their adulterous affair, or whatever, because they see so much corruption in the world, and feel helpless to do anything about it.

Or perhaps they spend so much time on their jobs, and their spouses, and their kids, and their hobbies because they have a life.

 

Why do so many engineers/technical people here, who I assume are responsible for various levels of innovation and forward thinking, look back at the constitution as a "perfect document" and complain about any amendments made since the bill-of-rights was added as ruining our country?

Because like most complex engineering projects we know it's not perfect but we know every idiosyncratic function and any revision will still have idiosyncratic functions but they will be unknown with no countermeasures in the beginning.
We don't upgrade hardware or software company wide just because there are are new enhancements or 'bug fixes' because we know the nature of the universe is Chaos not Order and small changes can have a 'butterfly effect' that's unpredictable.

 

Or perhaps they spend so much time on their jobs, and their spouses, and their kids, and their hobbies because they have a life.

Not everything is fun and Jefferson said we should have more than just "a life". You should balance your time to achieve all three of Jefferson's quests - Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Voting is part of that triad.