www.militaar.net

Borja kirjutas:Ma (üldiselt) lootsin, et foorumlased saivad aru, et "sooja angaari // külma lennuvälja // reaktiiivtraktorite" teema jätkub nüüd kusagil mujal ning selle olulise kleepsuteema risustamine sellega lõpeb.....

Sekeldaja kirjutas:Andeks, ei leidnud lihtsalt alamteemat..

Borja kirjutas: See kõik on muidugi suht hariv aga edasine chomski-taoliste "neomarksistide arutelu" kolib siit teemast kuhugi mujale

Kapten Trumm kirjutas:Mina nt pole nõus nende mereväe promojuttudega Sõduris ja Kaitse kodus, kuidas esmavajalik probleem on merelahingu võimelised pealvee sõjalaevad.
Soome poolt peetud lahingutegevus Soome lahel WWII ajal näitas, et merelahingute pidamisest (Soome rannakaitse soomuslaevad ei osalenud ainsaski pealveelaevade merelahingus) oli märksa olulisem rannakaitse ning kaldaoperatsioonide võime. Need võimed osutusid kaalukeeleks rohkem kui kord lahingutes Kannase pärast. Nii 1941 kui ka 1944. Soome suured sõjalaevad seal märkimisväärset rolli ei mänginudki. Küll aga mängisid seal rolli väikealused, kaldal paiknevad kahurisüsteemid ning ka lennuvägi. Loomulikult ka miinid. Niipalju kui mina tean, Soome suured sõjalaevad tegelesid põhiliselt vene lennuväe tülitamise tõrjumisega ning aktiivses tegevuses osalesid vähe. Ilmarinen läkski põhja 1941 sügisel miini otsas, venelaste pihta pauku tegemata ning Väinamöinen varjas end aastaid edukalt venelaste õhurünnakute eest, sest venelased keskendasid sellisele sihtmärgile suuri jõupingutusi.

USA presidendi valimiste süsteem tehti omal ajal niisugune veider seepärast, et kui üldrahvalike valimiste käigus ilmneb mingi põhjus, miks ei saa valitud kandidaati riigipeaks panna, saaks valijamehed teha teistsuguse otsuse. Süsteemi kriitikud on juba pikka aega osundanud, et tänapäevasel info kiire leviku ajastul on see nonsens. Ka ei ole USA ajaloo jooksul kordagi juhtunud, et valijameeste kogu teeks teistsuguse otsuse kui majoritaarsel valimistel tehtud on.

Original plan

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution states:

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors chose the president and vice president.

Under the original plan, the candidate who received a majority of votes from the electors would become president; the candidate receiving the second most votes would become vice president. The original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[27]

-Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis.[28]
-Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting.
-Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president.
-The system as designed would rarely produce a winner, thus sending the election to Congress.

Alexander Hamilton described the framers' view of how electors would be chosen, "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."[29] The founders assumed this would take place district by district. That plan was carried out by many states until the 1880s. For example, in Massachusetts in 1820, the rule stated "the people shall vote by ballot, on which shall be designated who is voted for as an Elector for the district."[30] In other words, the people did not place the name of a candidate for a president on the ballot, instead they voted for their local elector, whom they trusted later to cast a responsible vote for president.

Some states reasoned that the favorite presidential candidate among the people in their state would have a much better chance if all of the electors selected by their state were sure to vote the same way – a "general ticket" of electors pledged to a party candidate.[31] So the slate of electors chosen by the state were no longer free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives. They became "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."[32] Once one state took that strategy, the others felt compelled to follow suit in order to compete for the strongest influence on the election.[31]

When James Madison and Hamilton, two of the most important architects of the Electoral College, saw this strategy being taken by some states, they protested strongly. Madison and Hamilton both made it clear this approach violated the spirit of the Constitution. According to Hamilton, the selection of the president should be "made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of president]."[29] According to Hamilton, the electors were to analyze the list of potential presidents and select the best one. He also used the term "deliberate." Hamilton considered a pre-pledged elector to violate the spirit of Article II of the Constitution insofar as such electors could make no "analysis" or "deliberate" concerning the candidates. Madison agreed entirely, saying that when the Constitution was written, all of its authors assumed individual electors would be elected in their districts and it was inconceivable a "general ticket" of electors dictated by a state would supplant the concept. Madison wrote to George Hay,

The district mode was mostly, if not exclusively in view when the Constitution was framed and adopted; & was exchanged for the general ticket [many years later].[33]

The founders assumed that electors would be elected by the citizens of their district and that elector was to be free to analyze and deliberate regarding who is best suited to be president.

Madison and Hamilton were so upset by what they saw as a distortion of the framers’ original intent that they advocated for a constitutional amendment to prevent anything other than the district plan: "the election of Presidential Electors by districts, is an amendment very proper to be brought forward", Madison told George Hay in 1823.[33] Hamilton went further. He actually drafted an amendment to the Constitution mandating the district plan for selecting electors.[34]

Drax kirjutas: Fake või mitte, aga psühholoogid väidaks ilmselt muud. See on vana tõde, et täiskasvanute mängude osas on suurimad sala-sadistid oma argielus pigem allaheitlikud ja vagurad. Ja vastupidi. Käib ka muude huvide kohta.