The following is a snowflake, roll it up with other snowflakes into a small snowball, roll that ball down the hill into a giant, unstoppable force on a collision course....
The republicans and GW Bush together have half a billion dollars in their campaign funds!
The democrats have less but probably enough to fund the total annual economies of more than just a few countries..simultaneously!!
I'm not asking you to pick a side here just reject the whole process, there is NO GOOD REASON for our electorial process to cost so much or become the contest of financing that it has become.
Vote for a third party and encourage everyone you know to do the same...it doesn't matter at this stage of the rebellion which party they pick. We need to break the circle, ultimately causing the reform of the process.
The first step will be to get their attention, so vote them out!! Have a tantrum, stomp your feet and scream by voting them out.
Then pursue a representative who will support a system without lobbiests and 'real' campaign finance restrictions that include limited, free air time to balance the playing field and donations only allowed from registered voters. Strict laws enforcing any entity that curcumvents the intent of that law.
If, and only if, he/she stands up for that premise will we then consider his/her platform and then we can once again divide ourselves based on the issues that we think serve us best. Healthy political debate without having to run it through the filter of corrupt campign finance and under the table influence.
Until that point please put aside the old ways, unite as one citizenry and VOTE THEM OUT...every damn one of them!!
Please pass this along to everyone who might vote.
If you don't do something you are a whore and they are your pimp so do something about it for once in your life.
Join the revolution...VOTE THEM OUT!!!
How much does a country cost.....
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I'm with you, Will. For the first time in my life I plan to vote third party. I think the immediate effect of third party voting will be an easier victory for Bush. But in the long, increased third party voting will create change. As things are now, I see no difference at all between the two parties.
Bill Hicks fans may remember a bit where Bill suggested that the candidates are all puppets being manipulated by the same puppet master. I can't think of a more apt description of American politics. Third party voting isn't the answer, but it will send a strong message that can only benefit us all in the long run.
Bill Hicks fans may remember a bit where Bill suggested that the candidates are all puppets being manipulated by the same puppet master. I can't think of a more apt description of American politics. Third party voting isn't the answer, but it will send a strong message that can only benefit us all in the long run.
For the record, on the AP newswire today:
"Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Sunday that he regretted burning through most of the $41 million his campaign raised last year on losses in Iowa and New Hampshire."
It's really gotten out of control. These special interest groups and lobbyists are probably the two greatest threats to our system of democracy and need to be abolished. A special interest group providing money to a campaign is nothing short of a bribe. From what loophole these organizations slithered out of I am unsure, but they are a threat. In my opinion, it is essential that the candidates we vote for cite their promises and pursue them, uninfluenced by the bribes of others. At the end, we assess their progress and decide whether or not they should return. In other wrods, politicians should stand on their own merits, not whoever pays them the most.
Where in the world is this level of support for needy children, the hungry, and the sick? For our ailing schools and failing medicare and social security systems? Instead of going towards meaningful purposes, it is sucked into a giant political vaccuum and wasted. Just like our income taxes.
Insomuch as I don't like Bush, I don't much like the democrats either. They are all the same wolves in sheep's clothing (as you said, puppets). As such, I will either vote for neither and go for a lesser candidate or not vote altogether.
"Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean said Sunday that he regretted burning through most of the $41 million his campaign raised last year on losses in Iowa and New Hampshire."
It's really gotten out of control. These special interest groups and lobbyists are probably the two greatest threats to our system of democracy and need to be abolished. A special interest group providing money to a campaign is nothing short of a bribe. From what loophole these organizations slithered out of I am unsure, but they are a threat. In my opinion, it is essential that the candidates we vote for cite their promises and pursue them, uninfluenced by the bribes of others. At the end, we assess their progress and decide whether or not they should return. In other wrods, politicians should stand on their own merits, not whoever pays them the most.
Where in the world is this level of support for needy children, the hungry, and the sick? For our ailing schools and failing medicare and social security systems? Instead of going towards meaningful purposes, it is sucked into a giant political vaccuum and wasted. Just like our income taxes.
Insomuch as I don't like Bush, I don't much like the democrats either. They are all the same wolves in sheep's clothing (as you said, puppets). As such, I will either vote for neither and go for a lesser candidate or not vote altogether.
Oh, I would concur (EDIT: with Dedman). I don't know exactly whose party to join (probably the independents since it's a catch-all), but the democrats are an embarrassment, especially Howard Dean. The majority of democrats running today are like Dean, full of this anti-Bush gusto and rhetoric, with zero substance behind their own claims.
Bush insults my intelligence by painting the world as a "good versus evil" scenario. The democrats insult my intelligence by trying to persuade me that the "evil Bush" is to blame for everything.
Granted, I'm in the apparently minority, but dammit I want the cold, hard facts. Enough with the wishy-washy "I'll fix medicare," "I'll save schools," "I'll be a superhero" rhetoric. Enough with the whats. I want the hows.
And as for Bush, I think Bush has the advantage of being the incumbent. In a twisted way, we know where Bush screws up. We know his fallacies. We know his problems. And the nation is still in one apparent piece with him in office, despite that what happened during his presidency is probably the singlemost horrific disaster on US soil in the past quarter of a century.
Bush insults my intelligence by painting the world as a "good versus evil" scenario. The democrats insult my intelligence by trying to persuade me that the "evil Bush" is to blame for everything.
Granted, I'm in the apparently minority, but dammit I want the cold, hard facts. Enough with the wishy-washy "I'll fix medicare," "I'll save schools," "I'll be a superhero" rhetoric. Enough with the whats. I want the hows.
And as for Bush, I think Bush has the advantage of being the incumbent. In a twisted way, we know where Bush screws up. We know his fallacies. We know his problems. And the nation is still in one apparent piece with him in office, despite that what happened during his presidency is probably the singlemost horrific disaster on US soil in the past quarter of a century.
-
Nightshade
- DBB Master
- Posts: 5138
- Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Planet Earth, USA
- Contact:
<--- WTF is this thing?
TB, Its a revision of his previous icon character. Sol, your ending statement sounded like you believe 9/11 was Bush's fault even though it would have happend if Gore or any other person was in office as well.
I think most Americans are comfortable with Bush in office because yes, we know where he screws up, we know where he stands and for the most part the general populace has been pleased with the way he handled the events following 9/11 and then even after that the initial start of Iraqi Freedom.
9/11 was responsible for a lot of the actions, whether right or wrong, that have taken place over the last couple of years. If it hadn't of happened, Bush would have been doing other things since 2001.
As for the main topic at hand I would vote for the independents if I thought it would do anything, but my vote really means very little since the slobbering masses will still continue to vote for the two party system. That and politics means about as much to me as a pile of dog sh!t.
I think most Americans are comfortable with Bush in office because yes, we know where he screws up, we know where he stands and for the most part the general populace has been pleased with the way he handled the events following 9/11 and then even after that the initial start of Iraqi Freedom.
9/11 was responsible for a lot of the actions, whether right or wrong, that have taken place over the last couple of years. If it hadn't of happened, Bush would have been doing other things since 2001.
As for the main topic at hand I would vote for the independents if I thought it would do anything, but my vote really means very little since the slobbering masses will still continue to vote for the two party system. That and politics means about as much to me as a pile of dog sh!t.
-
index_html
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 571
- Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2002 2:01 am
With regard to the presidency, who did you have in mind? I'd certainly like to know what someone stands for before just blindly voting "third party" out of frustration.<font face="Arial" size="3">Vote for a third party and encourage everyone you know to do the same</font>
Electing Jesse Ventura as Minnesota Governor, for example, may have been a snub towards the two dominant parties, but from all accounts, the self-described Independent/Libertarian didn't make a shred of difference (unless spending a crapload of taxpayer money on a widely disdained "light rail" project is somehow revolutionary). I dunno, I'm not sure the "vote third party" strategy a great formula for success. I've seen more than few third party candidates that were total quacks. You won't see me voting Green Party, Socialist Party, Natural Law Party, Peace & Freedom Party, or the Prohibition Party (which I didn't know existed until recently -- good grief, take a gander at the "values" this bunch embraces http://www.prohibition.org/ ). There are a lot of extremists with really messed up agendas under the third party blanket. Also, waving the banner of a third party doesn't necessarily mean the candidate won't try to buy his way to power just like the dominant parties ... look at Ross Perot.
I agree that the money behind political campaigns has gotten out of control and the notion of buying an election doesn't belong in my conception of democracy. But, I also think that people going into government who are determined to profoundly change it are a lot more likely to be consumed by it or be pushed to the sidelines of irrelevancy. Furthermore, our media is complicit in this game and are often the beneficiaries of nice big chunks of that campaign money. The road to the Whitehouse is strewn with the dead campaigns of third party candidates who couldn't ante up the admission cost and stamina fare that media exposure demands.
Wish I knew the solution ... getting rid of money altogether? Gonna go watch football now and see which campaign financed the better Super Bowl candidates.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by index_html:
With regard to the presidency, who did you have in mind? I'd certainly like to know what someone stands for before just blindly voting "third party" out of frustration.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would be very surprised (and that's a mild expression) if a third-party candidate actually gained something else than publicity yet. Thus, if you think about the outcome of the next election, it probably doesn't matter in that sense, so no damage done even if the candidate isn't of particular potential in reality.
However, what it may change is exactly that the third parties might begin to get more publicity. I may be wrong since I don't follow the U.S. domestic politics very closely (although I know that I should, because it affects the foreign politics), but I've got the impression that the third parties don't get all that much publicity except maybe through some really weird campaigns, but those don't help because it's only publicity, not good publicity, and it doesn't produce candidates or parties that would or should be taken seriously.
With regard to the presidency, who did you have in mind? I'd certainly like to know what someone stands for before just blindly voting "third party" out of frustration.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would be very surprised (and that's a mild expression) if a third-party candidate actually gained something else than publicity yet. Thus, if you think about the outcome of the next election, it probably doesn't matter in that sense, so no damage done even if the candidate isn't of particular potential in reality.
However, what it may change is exactly that the third parties might begin to get more publicity. I may be wrong since I don't follow the U.S. domestic politics very closely (although I know that I should, because it affects the foreign politics), but I've got the impression that the third parties don't get all that much publicity except maybe through some really weird campaigns, but those don't help because it's only publicity, not good publicity, and it doesn't produce candidates or parties that would or should be taken seriously.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Any third party will do, not as a solution but as a way to shake things up.
If this idea really took off and a third party, or numerous third parties took home 30% of the vote one of the big two would still win but the press would be all over the story and no matter how you spin it the bottom line would be 'The people are sick of the status quo'.
If that became the big story, 2 years later would be the next congressional election and you can bet for a whole year prior to it the big story would be 'Will america repeat it's tantrum'...
That would have such such an impact that the media would in effect be giving away time to many third party candidates just by all the pontificating and reporting on the possibility.
That would create opportunitys for third party candidates who would then have real chances at usnseating democrat or republican incumbants.
If you want a recomendation I'm reluctant to give one because I end up helping repubs or dems depending on which choice and thereby poison the purity of my plea.
The reform party is closest to the campaign reform I speak of but perhaps the most effective is whichever third party has the most voters in your region or state regardless of it's leanings.
As goofy as it seems *if* this notion took off like the 'All your base' thing did you would have quite lot of youthful voters.
Then from there it could grow outward to other demographics.
Just keep the premise simple, it's only about finance reform. Removing the large dollars from the process. It's not about any other policy, at this stage that is too polarizing and would fracture the rebellion.
It's a fantasy that *could* come true. A way that your vote could really count in a very big way.
I should have taken a little time to compose it, instead I just ripped it off the top of my head this afternoon but the seed is there to be planted.
If this idea really took off and a third party, or numerous third parties took home 30% of the vote one of the big two would still win but the press would be all over the story and no matter how you spin it the bottom line would be 'The people are sick of the status quo'.
If that became the big story, 2 years later would be the next congressional election and you can bet for a whole year prior to it the big story would be 'Will america repeat it's tantrum'...
That would have such such an impact that the media would in effect be giving away time to many third party candidates just by all the pontificating and reporting on the possibility.
That would create opportunitys for third party candidates who would then have real chances at usnseating democrat or republican incumbants.
If you want a recomendation I'm reluctant to give one because I end up helping repubs or dems depending on which choice and thereby poison the purity of my plea.
The reform party is closest to the campaign reform I speak of but perhaps the most effective is whichever third party has the most voters in your region or state regardless of it's leanings.
As goofy as it seems *if* this notion took off like the 'All your base' thing did you would have quite lot of youthful voters.
Then from there it could grow outward to other demographics.
Just keep the premise simple, it's only about finance reform. Removing the large dollars from the process. It's not about any other policy, at this stage that is too polarizing and would fracture the rebellion.
It's a fantasy that *could* come true. A way that your vote could really count in a very big way.
I should have taken a little time to compose it, instead I just ripped it off the top of my head this afternoon but the seed is there to be planted.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tyranny:
TB, Its a revision of his previous icon character.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And actually, I'm not responsible for this awesome rendering. That honor goes to Maxx.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tyranny:
Sol, your ending statement sounded like you believe 9/11 was Bush's fault even though it would have happend if Gore or any other person was in office as well.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't mean it that way - it was an awkward sentence. What I meant to say was that Bush's presidency has faced 9/11, which is probably the most significant event of our time. I'm not insinuating that his administration is the "singlemost horrific disaster on US soil."
That furthermore, since we've seen Bush in action for the past four years, that we've learned his idiosyncracies and where he stands. He's not a mystery meat candidate coming in from left field.
TB, Its a revision of his previous icon character.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And actually, I'm not responsible for this awesome rendering. That honor goes to Maxx.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tyranny:
Sol, your ending statement sounded like you believe 9/11 was Bush's fault even though it would have happend if Gore or any other person was in office as well.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't mean it that way - it was an awkward sentence. What I meant to say was that Bush's presidency has faced 9/11, which is probably the most significant event of our time. I'm not insinuating that his administration is the "singlemost horrific disaster on US soil."
That furthermore, since we've seen Bush in action for the past four years, that we've learned his idiosyncracies and where he stands. He's not a mystery meat candidate coming in from left field.
I honstly can't see elected officials getting rid of their primary source of income. And you can't get elected unless you have money... So any drastic change on that level, as far as I can see, would have to come from the judicial branch.
And as far as the other issues, if a third party is saying something to get enough people voting for them, one or both of the two main ones will probably just absorb them. If you're voting for party Y because of issue X, and then, say, major party J takes on issue X the same as Y, then Y loses almost all it's footing because it really has no reason to exist anymore (promoting X).
And as far as the other issues, if a third party is saying something to get enough people voting for them, one or both of the two main ones will probably just absorb them. If you're voting for party Y because of issue X, and then, say, major party J takes on issue X the same as Y, then Y loses almost all it's footing because it really has no reason to exist anymore (promoting X).
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Tetrad:
So any drastic change on that level, as far as I can see, would have to come from the judicial branch.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can't, or at least aren't supposed to, create law just interpret it and apply it. Since there is no law even close to what I'm talking about there is no way they could: abolish lobbiests, assign free airtime (FCC needed there), rewrite campign donation law, etc.
The only way is if the voters unite and rebel. It would be a revolution, something the historians would teach about for centuries. The year the people united and destroyed the two party deathgrip on americas leadership and protected the foundation of the representative republic system.
It would result in good people being able to be elected for the first time in close to two centurys! We haven't had true statesmen in office for a very long time they were replaced by slick talkers and figureheads and we grew complacent and accepted it.
Some people get hung up on the fear of putting an inexperienced president in power, or one with a radical agenda. I don't fear gridlock, and that's exactly what would happen if, say, a Ralph Nader got into power.
Congress would slow down and try to ride out most of his attempts to reform but it would be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Some middle of the road candidates would jump ship and try to ride the new wave of voter interest by joining the movement. The Reform Party would gain stature and get real press attention because everyone would know the voters just might back them in the next election cycle.
It would be easy to do with a charismatic spokesman to sell it, or another depression to make the voters mad enough to seek radical replacement of their rep's on a national level.
Jesse Ventura is proof it could happen.
The current political climate is ripe I think with both sides so blatently playing the voters as fools.
So any drastic change on that level, as far as I can see, would have to come from the judicial branch.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They can't, or at least aren't supposed to, create law just interpret it and apply it. Since there is no law even close to what I'm talking about there is no way they could: abolish lobbiests, assign free airtime (FCC needed there), rewrite campign donation law, etc.
The only way is if the voters unite and rebel. It would be a revolution, something the historians would teach about for centuries. The year the people united and destroyed the two party deathgrip on americas leadership and protected the foundation of the representative republic system.
It would result in good people being able to be elected for the first time in close to two centurys! We haven't had true statesmen in office for a very long time they were replaced by slick talkers and figureheads and we grew complacent and accepted it.
Some people get hung up on the fear of putting an inexperienced president in power, or one with a radical agenda. I don't fear gridlock, and that's exactly what would happen if, say, a Ralph Nader got into power.
Congress would slow down and try to ride out most of his attempts to reform but it would be too late to put the genie back in the bottle.
Some middle of the road candidates would jump ship and try to ride the new wave of voter interest by joining the movement. The Reform Party would gain stature and get real press attention because everyone would know the voters just might back them in the next election cycle.
It would be easy to do with a charismatic spokesman to sell it, or another depression to make the voters mad enough to seek radical replacement of their rep's on a national level.
Jesse Ventura is proof it could happen.
The current political climate is ripe I think with both sides so blatently playing the voters as fools.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Will Robinson:
The only way is if the voters unite and rebel. It would be a revolution, something the historians would teach about for centuries.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*tsk* But the average Joe is too apathetic to care about what's going on.
The only way is if the voters unite and rebel. It would be a revolution, something the historians would teach about for centuries.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*tsk* But the average Joe is too apathetic to care about what's going on.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
I'll vote for Bush over anyone else running right now because he's pro-life. I couldn't care less about that other stuff most people focus on -- give me an electable candidate who'll appoint pro-life judges, and that's where my vote goes.
If the election was a completely foregone conclusion (like, the Dems put Dean forward as their candidate) I might go third-party just to shake things up. But I figure, a third party is coming anyway, when the Dems manage to collapse
If the election was a completely foregone conclusion (like, the Dems put Dean forward as their candidate) I might go third-party just to shake things up. But I figure, a third party is coming anyway, when the Dems manage to collapse
Lothar,
I don't mean any offense, but it is people like you that perpetuate the 2 party system. They disagree on a handful of social issues and directly agree on 90% of issues (well, almost, they only disagree in extremely subtle ways). Things like Gay marriage, abortion, and gun control seem to decide most people's minds, and the Republicrats get away with gross over-spending, pushing our deficits to all time records. There are other pro-life candidates besides Bush.
I am going to vote third party.
Was Ross Perot a whacko billionaire who paid his way into fame? Damn right. But it was Perot who pushed the balanced budget, which then forced Clinton and Dole to also have their own balanced budget plans. Remember that? Clinton actually even had a balanced budget one year. Amazing! Not to credit clinton really, it was just an election issue forced upon him.
The only way I can see things changing in this country is by voting third parties who advocate issues we feel strongly about. When enough of the public votes for a third party, the major 2 will take notice and absorb the most outstanding issue so as to quell the third party.
I believe in reducing the size of the government and fiscal responsibility (You've heard this lie from the republicans, who do exactly the opposite of this), so I'm voting Libertarian. I hope you join me in taking our country back.
I don't mean any offense, but it is people like you that perpetuate the 2 party system. They disagree on a handful of social issues and directly agree on 90% of issues (well, almost, they only disagree in extremely subtle ways). Things like Gay marriage, abortion, and gun control seem to decide most people's minds, and the Republicrats get away with gross over-spending, pushing our deficits to all time records. There are other pro-life candidates besides Bush.
I am going to vote third party.
Was Ross Perot a whacko billionaire who paid his way into fame? Damn right. But it was Perot who pushed the balanced budget, which then forced Clinton and Dole to also have their own balanced budget plans. Remember that? Clinton actually even had a balanced budget one year. Amazing! Not to credit clinton really, it was just an election issue forced upon him.
The only way I can see things changing in this country is by voting third parties who advocate issues we feel strongly about. When enough of the public votes for a third party, the major 2 will take notice and absorb the most outstanding issue so as to quell the third party.
I believe in reducing the size of the government and fiscal responsibility (You've heard this lie from the republicans, who do exactly the opposite of this), so I'm voting Libertarian. I hope you join me in taking our country back.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
I'll vote for Bush over anyone else running right now because he's pro-life. I couldn't care less about that other stuff most people focus on -- give me an electable candidate who'll appoint pro-life judges, and that's where my vote goes.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have to admit, Tom, that this sounds extremely short-sighted. The president and his office run the country, and their opinion on some ethical matter has no bearing on that. The conflict in Iraq cost more lives (on both sides) than it would have without war and it didn't solve or improve anything major. When the US gets over this illusion, all it will be left with is a hangover and a gigantic budgetary hole. American soldiers are still dying on a daily basis because Bush made a mistake waging war. Iraq had a domestic conflict, Bush made it international and invaded.
You say pro-life. Abortion for instance. If a child is undesired (e.g. underage parents who had an "accident") the coming of that child will ruin way more than an abortion. It has no guarantees on a good, fair future. And if you tell me that's what God wanted then you're a damn fatalist and there's no way to have a fair conversation with you on this subject.
You sound like you have blind, unconditional confidence in Bush just because he is "pro-life". Unless you marry the person in question, you shouldn't have blind, unconditional confidence in him (or her)
I'll vote for Bush over anyone else running right now because he's pro-life. I couldn't care less about that other stuff most people focus on -- give me an electable candidate who'll appoint pro-life judges, and that's where my vote goes.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have to admit, Tom, that this sounds extremely short-sighted. The president and his office run the country, and their opinion on some ethical matter has no bearing on that. The conflict in Iraq cost more lives (on both sides) than it would have without war and it didn't solve or improve anything major. When the US gets over this illusion, all it will be left with is a hangover and a gigantic budgetary hole. American soldiers are still dying on a daily basis because Bush made a mistake waging war. Iraq had a domestic conflict, Bush made it international and invaded.
You say pro-life. Abortion for instance. If a child is undesired (e.g. underage parents who had an "accident") the coming of that child will ruin way more than an abortion. It has no guarantees on a good, fair future. And if you tell me that's what God wanted then you're a damn fatalist and there's no way to have a fair conversation with you on this subject.
You sound like you have blind, unconditional confidence in Bush just because he is "pro-life". Unless you marry the person in question, you shouldn't have blind, unconditional confidence in him (or her)
A potential candidate under Lothar's logic:
- Gased hundreds of individual heretics for interfering with my politics.
- Stuffed the polls so I would win.
- Declared war on a neighboring country to take their assets.
- Eliminated communist social health, welfare, and education programs.
- Unwavering pro-life record.
People who refuse to look at the "big picture" and instead focus on one or two personally significant issues screw up the political system.
- Gased hundreds of individual heretics for interfering with my politics.
- Stuffed the polls so I would win.
- Declared war on a neighboring country to take their assets.
- Eliminated communist social health, welfare, and education programs.
- Unwavering pro-life record.
People who refuse to look at the "big picture" and instead focus on one or two personally significant issues screw up the political system.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Birds, I'm not perpetuating the two-party system, I'm just perpetuating one of the parties. The reason the two-party system stays around is that there are enough people supporting the other party, as well. I'm not going to go vote third-party just to shake things up; I'm only voting third-party if there's a third-party candidate who will actually send the laws the direction I'd like to see them. As long as a platform I mostly agree with is in power, I'm not going to try for the "shake things up" vote.
Pierre, how is looking for a guy who'll put judges into office (long-term) "short-sighted"? You act like the president's "opinion on some ethical matter" doesn't actually have any long-term effect. Like I said, it's up to him to appoint judges -- which is the most long-term effect this country has. As for the "coming of the child ruining way more than an abortion", I just can't follow that logic -- so if they're born, that's somehow worse for them than if they're not? I hear this argument a lot with respect to foster children -- "poor kids, they should've been aborted instead of forced to live where they're not wanted" -- but I've never heard any of the foster kids I know say "I wish I'd been aborted because I'm not wanted".
Sol pretty much every candidate who stands a chance of getting elected is the same on 99% of the issues -- any Republican, Democrat, or third-party candidate -- so most of the time the issue that decides it for me is who's pro-life. You can go on for hours complaining about how Bush's economic policy sucks, but then, most candidates' economic policies suck, so I'm voting Bush because he's pro-life. Obviously, I wouldn't be like "gee, Saddam is pro-life, lemme vote for Saddam" -- it's more like, this is the only issue on which major candidates differ that I actually care about. What I stated before was the one-sentence summary of the much more complex issue, but you should know me well enough to not think I actually make my decisions based on the one-sentence summary.
By the way, you're all jerks for saying I'm the reason the political system is screwed up "People like me" ruin the system? Nah -- people like me just recognize the system for what it is, and use what influence we have to get the results we desire, which often gets in the way of "people like you" who want the system itself to change.
Pierre, how is looking for a guy who'll put judges into office (long-term) "short-sighted"? You act like the president's "opinion on some ethical matter" doesn't actually have any long-term effect. Like I said, it's up to him to appoint judges -- which is the most long-term effect this country has. As for the "coming of the child ruining way more than an abortion", I just can't follow that logic -- so if they're born, that's somehow worse for them than if they're not? I hear this argument a lot with respect to foster children -- "poor kids, they should've been aborted instead of forced to live where they're not wanted" -- but I've never heard any of the foster kids I know say "I wish I'd been aborted because I'm not wanted".
Sol pretty much every candidate who stands a chance of getting elected is the same on 99% of the issues -- any Republican, Democrat, or third-party candidate -- so most of the time the issue that decides it for me is who's pro-life. You can go on for hours complaining about how Bush's economic policy sucks, but then, most candidates' economic policies suck, so I'm voting Bush because he's pro-life. Obviously, I wouldn't be like "gee, Saddam is pro-life, lemme vote for Saddam" -- it's more like, this is the only issue on which major candidates differ that I actually care about. What I stated before was the one-sentence summary of the much more complex issue, but you should know me well enough to not think I actually make my decisions based on the one-sentence summary.
By the way, you're all jerks for saying I'm the reason the political system is screwed up
"People like me" ruin the system? Nah -- people like me just recognize the system for what it is, and use what influence we have to get the results we desire, which often gets in the way of "people like you" who want the system itself to change.-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
Nah -- people like me just recognize the system for what it is, and use what influence we have to get the results we desire, which often gets in the way of "people like you" who want the system itself to change.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The system is fine, I just want people to use it to it's full potential by taking it off of 'auto-pilot' and hire a real pilot to steer the course.
Someone who will chart the safest, most efficient course, rather than buying a prepared flight plan packaged by the highest bidder in first class who doesn't share the same destination or risks as the rest of us regular passengers.
Nah -- people like me just recognize the system for what it is, and use what influence we have to get the results we desire, which often gets in the way of "people like you" who want the system itself to change.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The system is fine, I just want people to use it to it's full potential by taking it off of 'auto-pilot' and hire a real pilot to steer the course.
Someone who will chart the safest, most efficient course, rather than buying a prepared flight plan packaged by the highest bidder in first class who doesn't share the same destination or risks as the rest of us regular passengers.
Lothar: You invited your own criticism when you yelped:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
I'll vote for Bush over anyone else running right now because he's pro-life. I couldn't care less about that other stuff most people focus on</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
I'll vote for Bush over anyone else running right now because he's pro-life. I couldn't care less about that other stuff most people focus on</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
Tom, the US president is running the most powerful country in the world. He has the power to take on any other country, and if allies turn their backs on him it doesn't make him less powerful than he was before. How can you go on bickering about the president like he's the head of an ethical association?
There's another angle to what you're saying. There's a difference between the law and judges and the real world. If people really want an abortion, they will find a way. When I was talking about the coming of a child ruining things, I didn't neccesarily mean the child itself. Teenagers are stupid, so they will have accidents. What would you do, have the teenagers prosecuted for having underage sex and put the baby in a foster house, or allow for an abortion? An abortion is just an extension of anti-conceptiva anyway. You might stretch the issue the other way and say that every time I cross a girl in the street I deny a potential child existance, because I could have shagged her on the spot and give birth to new life. What about pregnancy after a rape? Would you want such a burden in addition of the rape itself for those people?
The key in this kind of thing is that you cannot keep a black/white vision on this. Same goes for euthanasia. If you have a dying patient in pain, you could do surgery to give him four more weeks of agony, or you could do nothing. This is passive euthanasia. These things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, just like the judging system evaluates murders on a case-by-case basis. There may be circumstances that need be taken into account, that's why you can't just prescribe the same sentence for every murderer without a trial. I plead for the same in case of abortion, euthanasia and other subjects that are related to this.
Back on the president issue. I think Bush is dangerous to his country because the ill side-effects of what he is doing will surface only after a while. You can not get away with a deficit like that. It seems like Bush has told everybody what they wanted to hear (some want to hear tax cuts, others want to hear "pro-life" business, then again some want to hear about another country conquered, and others want to hear that americans are to set foot on Mars). This is a very dangerous attitude, because everyone finds something they like in what Bush offers, and that will mask all other ill things he does. One doesn't care about the rest as long as the president is "pro-life", another doesn't care about the rest as long as the president arranges for a Mars mission, and others don't care about the rest as long as they see some tax cutting in their mailbox. Bush is basically making sure that there's always something about him for anybody to like.
As I said, anybody other than Bush will be an improvement.
There's another angle to what you're saying. There's a difference between the law and judges and the real world. If people really want an abortion, they will find a way. When I was talking about the coming of a child ruining things, I didn't neccesarily mean the child itself. Teenagers are stupid, so they will have accidents. What would you do, have the teenagers prosecuted for having underage sex and put the baby in a foster house, or allow for an abortion? An abortion is just an extension of anti-conceptiva anyway. You might stretch the issue the other way and say that every time I cross a girl in the street I deny a potential child existance, because I could have shagged her on the spot and give birth to new life. What about pregnancy after a rape? Would you want such a burden in addition of the rape itself for those people?
The key in this kind of thing is that you cannot keep a black/white vision on this. Same goes for euthanasia. If you have a dying patient in pain, you could do surgery to give him four more weeks of agony, or you could do nothing. This is passive euthanasia. These things have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, just like the judging system evaluates murders on a case-by-case basis. There may be circumstances that need be taken into account, that's why you can't just prescribe the same sentence for every murderer without a trial. I plead for the same in case of abortion, euthanasia and other subjects that are related to this.
Back on the president issue. I think Bush is dangerous to his country because the ill side-effects of what he is doing will surface only after a while. You can not get away with a deficit like that. It seems like Bush has told everybody what they wanted to hear (some want to hear tax cuts, others want to hear "pro-life" business, then again some want to hear about another country conquered, and others want to hear that americans are to set foot on Mars). This is a very dangerous attitude, because everyone finds something they like in what Bush offers, and that will mask all other ill things he does. One doesn't care about the rest as long as the president is "pro-life", another doesn't care about the rest as long as the president arranges for a Mars mission, and others don't care about the rest as long as they see some tax cutting in their mailbox. Bush is basically making sure that there's always something about him for anybody to like.
As I said, anybody other than Bush will be an improvement.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Gooberman:
Why even have parties? The whole idea of sacrificing part of your beliefs to get the majority of them passed doesnâ??t sit right with me.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because you'll never agree with a person on every issue. Elections, as are politics, are about compromise.
Why even have parties? The whole idea of sacrificing part of your beliefs to get the majority of them passed doesnâ??t sit right with me.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because you'll never agree with a person on every issue. Elections, as are politics, are about compromise.
No, but it would force people to actually look at the candidates rather then just going to the election booth and searching for the R's and D's.
McCain is a good example. I tend to be pretty far left, but I have voted for him in every election in which I have been able to. Yet have failed at convincing some of my liberal friends to do likewise because he has that damned R by his name. This goes both ways.
Some people are so adamantly committed to their party that they wont even listen to what the other guy has to say. Parties turn politics into sporting events.
Anyway, if I get another responce I might just start another thread. I didn't intend to hijack this one.
McCain is a good example. I tend to be pretty far left, but I have voted for him in every election in which I have been able to. Yet have failed at convincing some of my liberal friends to do likewise because he has that damned R by his name. This goes both ways.
Some people are so adamantly committed to their party that they wont even listen to what the other guy has to say. Parties turn politics into sporting events.
Anyway, if I get another responce I might just start another thread. I didn't intend to hijack this one.
I too am appalled by this country's political system. The ONLY two parties you ever get to see or get any kind of coverage are the skimps and the liars. I am disgusted that the GOP boasts about their war chest of money. I am disgusted that the Dems' Dean blew 41 mil in TWO states. Are people really that stupid to vote for the person wtih the most money? Screw this country then We dserve what we get
We dserve what we get-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Pierre, since when am I "black and white" on the issue? Your straw-man oversimplification of my position might be "black and white", but my position certainly isn't. I'm sure I could create a "black and white" oversimplification of your position, too -- "as long as it's not old enough to support itself, you can just kill it." I'm pretty black-and-white over who I'll vote for, not because my position is simple, but because it's pretty clear which candidates' positions are compatible with mine.
There is a sense in which there needs to be some "case-by-case" analysis. Abortion, as a generally available procedure, needs to be outlawed. There might still be cases where it's warranted, but it shouldn't be a general and easy-to-get procedure. It's not just an extension contraceptives -- it's anti-birth, not anti-conception, and there's a big difference.
A big piece of the problem is that exact perception -- "oh, it's just another form of contraceptive." People treat it as such, which is why it's so common. If people realized "gee, if I get pregnant, I have to actually have the baby" they might be a little more responsible with actually using birth control (and don't start in with the "what about rape" argument -- like I said, there "might still be cases".)
With respect to Bush being dangerous because the side-effects of what he's doing will surface, you need to go find my explanation of the budget deficit. What will the side-effects be? Whoever the next president is will have to cut the federal budget, because the American people won't allow him to raise taxes, and he can't possibly spend any more because of the size of the deficit. That's a side effect I'm happy with. What about the side effects of Iraq? The Middle East will stabilize, and nobody will care too much about the worldwide French-style anti-Americanism, because it's much better than Terrorist-style anti-Americanism. (I don't care if the president makes you think he's an idiot, as long as by doing so, he took out some guy who would have otherwise been trying to kill Americans.) That's a reasonably good side-effect. And if more pro-life judges get appointed, that gives me the main side-effect I'm going for. Overall, then, I'm pretty happy.
So, as for the question of political parties -- we have political parties because they allow us to identify candidates who are likely to agree with us. The problem with them is that people are ignorant, and the parties exploit people's ignorance -- but don't blame the parties, blame the ignorant people. Voting third-party doesn't help fix the ignorance, it just lodges your vote as someone who doesn't like it. On the other hand, me voting for Bush helps exploit the ignorance in a way that benefits my position. So guys, vote third-party all you'd like -- in the long run, it benefits me
There is a sense in which there needs to be some "case-by-case" analysis. Abortion, as a generally available procedure, needs to be outlawed. There might still be cases where it's warranted, but it shouldn't be a general and easy-to-get procedure. It's not just an extension contraceptives -- it's anti-birth, not anti-conception, and there's a big difference.
A big piece of the problem is that exact perception -- "oh, it's just another form of contraceptive." People treat it as such, which is why it's so common. If people realized "gee, if I get pregnant, I have to actually have the baby" they might be a little more responsible with actually using birth control (and don't start in with the "what about rape" argument -- like I said, there "might still be cases".)
With respect to Bush being dangerous because the side-effects of what he's doing will surface, you need to go find my explanation of the budget deficit. What will the side-effects be? Whoever the next president is will have to cut the federal budget, because the American people won't allow him to raise taxes, and he can't possibly spend any more because of the size of the deficit. That's a side effect I'm happy with. What about the side effects of Iraq? The Middle East will stabilize, and nobody will care too much about the worldwide French-style anti-Americanism, because it's much better than Terrorist-style anti-Americanism. (I don't care if the president makes you think he's an idiot, as long as by doing so, he took out some guy who would have otherwise been trying to kill Americans.) That's a reasonably good side-effect. And if more pro-life judges get appointed, that gives me the main side-effect I'm going for. Overall, then, I'm pretty happy.
So, as for the question of political parties -- we have political parties because they allow us to identify candidates who are likely to agree with us. The problem with them is that people are ignorant, and the parties exploit people's ignorance -- but don't blame the parties, blame the ignorant people. Voting third-party doesn't help fix the ignorance, it just lodges your vote as someone who doesn't like it. On the other hand, me voting for Bush helps exploit the ignorance in a way that benefits my position. So guys, vote third-party all you'd like -- in the long run, it benefits me
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Gooberman:
McCain is a good example. I tend to be pretty far left, but I have voted for him in every election in which I have been able to. Yet have failed at convincing some of my liberal friends to do likewise because he has that damned R by his name. This goes both ways.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the record, I think McCain would have made an excellent President. He's definitely a politician I can appreciate (that's a rarity) because he's capable of seeing both sides of the coin. He's Republican, yes, but he's not adamant about having to pass its paranoid agenda and cut off all roads for debate. He also frequently works with Lieberman on various bits of consumer legislation. He just strikes me as being a good guy and it's a bit of a shame he didn't get the nomination. I rather hope he tries to run again in 2008.
McCain is a good example. I tend to be pretty far left, but I have voted for him in every election in which I have been able to. Yet have failed at convincing some of my liberal friends to do likewise because he has that damned R by his name. This goes both ways.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
For the record, I think McCain would have made an excellent President. He's definitely a politician I can appreciate (that's a rarity) because he's capable of seeing both sides of the coin. He's Republican, yes, but he's not adamant about having to pass its paranoid agenda and cut off all roads for debate. He also frequently works with Lieberman on various bits of consumer legislation. He just strikes me as being a good guy and it's a bit of a shame he didn't get the nomination. I rather hope he tries to run again in 2008.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
So guys, vote third-party all you'd like -- in the long run, it benefits me</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, your benefit is maxed out right now, republican president with a republican congress, and your dividends are not likely to pay too far into the future.
Do an audit of your profit and loss in the departments that matter most to you, start with pro life and work down all the way to petty cash...
Are you satisfied?
Is that the best america can do?
Is Bush the best america has to offer?
Will you not risk anything to improve it?
Are you going to sit on your lead and play prevent defense?
So guys, vote third-party all you'd like -- in the long run, it benefits me
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, your benefit is maxed out right now, republican president with a republican congress, and your dividends are not likely to pay too far into the future.
Do an audit of your profit and loss in the departments that matter most to you, start with pro life and work down all the way to petty cash...
Are you satisfied?
Is that the best america can do?
Is Bush the best america has to offer?
Will you not risk anything to improve it?
Are you going to sit on your lead and play prevent defense?
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
By Zuruck's logic, I'm pro-life -- that must mean I'm a wacko doctor-killer and I support murder even though I'm also one of this board's most outspoken anti-death-penalty voices. *sigh* He's like Rican with shorter posts and better spelling.
Will, I'd risk things to improve it -- if there was a reasonable risk to be taken. Voting for a random third-party candidate in order to "shake things up" is a high risk, low profit venture. Keeping Bush in office long enough to manage some court appointments is a low-risk, high-profit venture. As soon as the Dems stop filibustering judicial appointments over racial issues, and as soon as one of the more liberal supreme court justices retires, I profit.
Am I satisfied? Of course not. Is the best America can do? Of course not. Does going out and voting third party improve the situation? You certainly haven't done a good job of convincing me that it will -- only that it might, possibly, in the long run, pan out a little bit, sort of. That's not enough; not even close. For now, I'm going to sit on -- and keep building on -- the lead I have, up until a better opportunity comes along. For example, if Alan Keyes has a shot at the nomination, I'm taking the risk and going with him. If a third-party candidate with great ideas and a large base of support shows up, I might vote his way. But voting third party for the sake of voting third party? Nope.
Will, I'd risk things to improve it -- if there was a reasonable risk to be taken. Voting for a random third-party candidate in order to "shake things up" is a high risk, low profit venture. Keeping Bush in office long enough to manage some court appointments is a low-risk, high-profit venture. As soon as the Dems stop filibustering judicial appointments over racial issues, and as soon as one of the more liberal supreme court justices retires, I profit.
Am I satisfied? Of course not. Is the best America can do? Of course not. Does going out and voting third party improve the situation? You certainly haven't done a good job of convincing me that it will -- only that it might, possibly, in the long run, pan out a little bit, sort of. That's not enough; not even close. For now, I'm going to sit on -- and keep building on -- the lead I have, up until a better opportunity comes along. For example, if Alan Keyes has a shot at the nomination, I'm taking the risk and going with him. If a third-party candidate with great ideas and a large base of support shows up, I might vote his way. But voting third party for the sake of voting third party? Nope.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
I understand and agree for the most part, but I don't think anyone, even someone as bright and sincere as Keyes will ever have a shot going from the status quo to victory in one election cycle. Bold action is required.
That's why I think this year, or possibly next time are the best times to go for a wholesale shift. It would help open the door with little risk because Bush has delivered about all he can...or will, and due to the momentum he started in the area of foriegn affairs even Hillary herself couldn't put and end to it in one term, so for the dems to win the whitehouse wouldn't be so bad with a repub. congress. You wouldn't lose much, if anything really, but you might open a door that once a third party got it's foot in would never close and then you can look for your ideal candidate.
The best way to create a third party candidate with a broad base is...to vote for one and do all you can to encourage others to do the same, playing it safe won't do that.
I'm not asking you to elect a third party this year, that's not a realistic choice anyway, I'm asking you to register as another voter who no longer supports the 'One Party who disguises itself as two'. That is something worth fighting for and after we get that door open we can all break apart and pick based on pro-life or free tea..or less war...or no tax...whatever
You must see the current status quo as less of a long term threat than I do.
That's why I think this year, or possibly next time are the best times to go for a wholesale shift. It would help open the door with little risk because Bush has delivered about all he can...or will, and due to the momentum he started in the area of foriegn affairs even Hillary herself couldn't put and end to it in one term, so for the dems to win the whitehouse wouldn't be so bad with a repub. congress. You wouldn't lose much, if anything really, but you might open a door that once a third party got it's foot in would never close and then you can look for your ideal candidate.
The best way to create a third party candidate with a broad base is...to vote for one and do all you can to encourage others to do the same, playing it safe won't do that.
I'm not asking you to elect a third party this year, that's not a realistic choice anyway, I'm asking you to register as another voter who no longer supports the 'One Party who disguises itself as two'. That is something worth fighting for and after we get that door open we can all break apart and pick based on pro-life or free tea..or less war...or no tax...whatever
You must see the current status quo as less of a long term threat than I do.
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
It's not a one-cycle thing. I don't expect Keyes to actually win anything for another 3 or 4 cycles at least.
I'm not particularly interested in a wholesale shift for the sake of a wholesale shift, at this point in time. I'm only interested in a wholesale shift if I like the direction the shift is going. I think the current system has some flaws, but there's no sense in abandoning it for another system unless I actually think the other system is better -- no sense in getting away from this system unless I have another system I'm heading to. There are some interesting third parties right now, but the doors I might open by voting for one don't seem to be particularly beneficial -- just simply having a third party isn't actually an improvement over the current system, and even having a third party use its leverage on issues it finds important doesn't particularly interest me, because it could just as easily go against me as for me. You simply haven't convinced me that voting for a third party, possibly opening the door for one to be a major player, is reasonably likely to be beneficial.
I don't see the current status quo as a big long-term threat, because I don't see it as long-term. Or, rather, I don't see the parts of it that are long-term as all that dangerous.
I'm not particularly interested in a wholesale shift for the sake of a wholesale shift, at this point in time. I'm only interested in a wholesale shift if I like the direction the shift is going. I think the current system has some flaws, but there's no sense in abandoning it for another system unless I actually think the other system is better -- no sense in getting away from this system unless I have another system I'm heading to. There are some interesting third parties right now, but the doors I might open by voting for one don't seem to be particularly beneficial -- just simply having a third party isn't actually an improvement over the current system, and even having a third party use its leverage on issues it finds important doesn't particularly interest me, because it could just as easily go against me as for me. You simply haven't convinced me that voting for a third party, possibly opening the door for one to be a major player, is reasonably likely to be beneficial.
I don't see the current status quo as a big long-term threat, because I don't see it as long-term. Or, rather, I don't see the parts of it that are long-term as all that dangerous.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am