well last i heard it was prohibitively expensive for anyone to enter the politics race. the only people with enough cash to give candidates are SIG's which are usually part of a corporation. at which time, the 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' rule comes into play.
LOL @ BD.
Diane Feinstien is a whacko.
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
Fusion pimp
- DBB Admiral
- Posts: 1618
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 2:01 am
I wouldn't care if Mickey Mouse got elected, as long as he left me alone and worried about running the country. I don't like the idea that I have to pay to protect other people. Leave me alone and let me do my own thing unless I break the law. I don't like the idea that "big brother" is there to protect me, I'm a big boy and can handle myself. Although I may disagree with things other people do, it's not my business nor is it the governments.. That's what liberty is.
Jeff, Cabin?
B-
Jeff, Cabin?
B-
Birdseye,
Say you achieve a huge rallying force behind a 3rd party, to the point where it is actually feasible that a 3rd party candidate can win the presidency.
Wont the corporations then assault him like they do all other politicians? There is nothing in the democratic basic belief system that says that corporations should be in politics. It is that those who run for office are all week when it comes to this extra money and daily TV commercials that will give them that edge.
I feel like those leaders in any other 3rd party would also fall to those same temptations. I believe rather then adopting a new party, we should just look for stronger and more disciplined leaders within our party. That is, assuming you want to keep the party system.
I agree that cooperate influence is a huge problem, and I also admit that I donâ??t fully know the arguments for voting third party.
So ideally what would you hope to gain?
Second, realistically how will this third party be able to stay different?
Personally, I would rather just abandon parties all together and force everyone to vote for individuals, not teams.
Say you achieve a huge rallying force behind a 3rd party, to the point where it is actually feasible that a 3rd party candidate can win the presidency.
Wont the corporations then assault him like they do all other politicians? There is nothing in the democratic basic belief system that says that corporations should be in politics. It is that those who run for office are all week when it comes to this extra money and daily TV commercials that will give them that edge.
I feel like those leaders in any other 3rd party would also fall to those same temptations. I believe rather then adopting a new party, we should just look for stronger and more disciplined leaders within our party. That is, assuming you want to keep the party system.
I agree that cooperate influence is a huge problem, and I also admit that I donâ??t fully know the arguments for voting third party.
So ideally what would you hope to gain?
Second, realistically how will this third party be able to stay different?
Personally, I would rather just abandon parties all together and force everyone to vote for individuals, not teams.
-
Bold Deceiver
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Somewhere in SoCal
Your Birdliness,Birdseye wrote:Hey, if you enjoy voting for politicians controlled by corporate interests, it's your right BD. Others of us are upset with the political system, with jerkoffs like Feinstein and Bush, your choices in the 2 major parties are **** and **** however you slice it.
There are some people who think big business belongs in government. That's fine, free country and all...
Your post assumes lots of premises that we do not agree upon.
Here's one -- Corporations Bad; California Otter-Scrubbers Good.
Corporations are just people. Folks like you and me. Heck most of us work for corporations. Or belong to unions. The state created corporations, and if you despise them so much, I recommend you devote your political energies, such as they are, to their eradication. Having said that, let me make my position clear: You are correct about Otter-Scrubbers. I like them too. They just shouldn't be permitted to vote or hold public office.
Now listen. I was a bit snide before, and I shouldn't have been. I guess in my earlier post I was trying to say, in a gruff and sardonic sort of way, that I think a vote for a third party is a waste, unless you have longer term goals in mind.
Perhaps you do. Perhaps you wish to shake things up, or even make the two prevailing parties turn their heads a little, in the direction of the third party -- to bring about change. Those things are perfectly good ideals.
In the short term, it's a lost vote. I think it's hard to disagree there. In the long term, though, who is to say? Either way, we're fortunate to be able to vote, and try to influence others.
Yer Southern California Bud,
BD
P.S. Ferno -- thanks for laughing at my humor.
"I don't like the idea that I have to pay to protect other people. Leave me alone and let me do my own thing unless I break the law. I don't like the idea that "big brother" is there to protect me, I'm a big boy and can handle myself. Although I may disagree with things other people do, it's not my business nor is it the governments.. That's what liberty is. "
Well said.
"Do you ever listen to speeches? Do you ever read the positions of candidates? Are you informed of their plans and propositions? Or do you just talk out of your oshiri and denounce anyone with "corporate influence"? I wonder."
I watched as many of the democratic debates as I could, I watch TV from time to time, I regularly listen to the radio (daily) I read a variety of online newspapers, I take university classes that deal with politics, and I also enjoy reading political books in my spare time.
I have found that politicians, especially when it comes to economic policy, do not make sound long term decisions. Frequently the decisions are based on short term needs, frequently appeasing their contributors.
"Wont the corporations then assault him like they do all other politicians? "
Absolutely right. I believe we also need fundamental changes in the way our political system works.
Third parties have had quite a bit of sway in the past-- the quickest way I can explain it is that if a third party begins to surge in the polls, the big 2 simply adopt the 3rd parties' hot button issues. Example: Ross Perot, balanced budget (Where are you now, Ross). Crazy as ★■◆● but perot had a point. He ran a business and had balanced a check book like most americans and realized, hey it's bad for the country to continue amassing a gigantic debt. You saw Clinton and Dole scramble with their own balanced budget proposals.
"Birdy, if you bought your beer by the case...you wouldn't have to worry about 2:00 AM "
Hey woody, you haven't seen how much I can drink
"Your post assumes lots of premises that we do not agree upon.
Here's one -- Corporations Bad; California Otter-Scrubbers Good. "
Actually, your post starts with this premise. Perhaps I am also to blame for your assumptions, for my post was quite short and perhaps unclear for you. I apologize for that. Corporations are not inherently bad. I do not believe in such black and white thinking as a whole. The universe is a dynamic, changing thing.
However, in corporations although anyone can buy a share, generally a small circle of people stand to profit exponentially higher than average joe who has 10 shares or 100 shares of microsoft.
"In the short term, it's a lost vote. I think it's hard to disagree there."
With all due respect, I find it to be quite easy. The democratic party is having to check itself and worry about Nader. Two, three percent, that could decide the next election. Nader matters, whether you like it or not.
I also request that you treat me as an intellectual equal, rather than a some generic college liberal, which seems to be an 'easy out' for many of the older conservatives I argue with. I apologize if I'm mistaken here.
Well said.
"Do you ever listen to speeches? Do you ever read the positions of candidates? Are you informed of their plans and propositions? Or do you just talk out of your oshiri and denounce anyone with "corporate influence"? I wonder."
I watched as many of the democratic debates as I could, I watch TV from time to time, I regularly listen to the radio (daily) I read a variety of online newspapers, I take university classes that deal with politics, and I also enjoy reading political books in my spare time.
I have found that politicians, especially when it comes to economic policy, do not make sound long term decisions. Frequently the decisions are based on short term needs, frequently appeasing their contributors.
"Wont the corporations then assault him like they do all other politicians? "
Absolutely right. I believe we also need fundamental changes in the way our political system works.
Third parties have had quite a bit of sway in the past-- the quickest way I can explain it is that if a third party begins to surge in the polls, the big 2 simply adopt the 3rd parties' hot button issues. Example: Ross Perot, balanced budget (Where are you now, Ross). Crazy as ★■◆● but perot had a point. He ran a business and had balanced a check book like most americans and realized, hey it's bad for the country to continue amassing a gigantic debt. You saw Clinton and Dole scramble with their own balanced budget proposals.
"Birdy, if you bought your beer by the case...you wouldn't have to worry about 2:00 AM "
Hey woody, you haven't seen how much I can drink
"Your post assumes lots of premises that we do not agree upon.
Here's one -- Corporations Bad; California Otter-Scrubbers Good. "
Actually, your post starts with this premise. Perhaps I am also to blame for your assumptions, for my post was quite short and perhaps unclear for you. I apologize for that. Corporations are not inherently bad. I do not believe in such black and white thinking as a whole. The universe is a dynamic, changing thing.
However, in corporations although anyone can buy a share, generally a small circle of people stand to profit exponentially higher than average joe who has 10 shares or 100 shares of microsoft.
"In the short term, it's a lost vote. I think it's hard to disagree there."
With all due respect, I find it to be quite easy. The democratic party is having to check itself and worry about Nader. Two, three percent, that could decide the next election. Nader matters, whether you like it or not.
I also request that you treat me as an intellectual equal, rather than a some generic college liberal, which seems to be an 'easy out' for many of the older conservatives I argue with. I apologize if I'm mistaken here.
-
Bold Deceiver
- DBB Captain
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Somewhere in SoCal
Agreed. Well said.Birdseye wrote: Corporations are not inherently bad. I do not believe in such black and white thinking as a whole. The universe is a dynamic, changing thing.
Right, but I think that merit should be rewarded. And in capitalism, merit is generally rewarded by financial success. Maybe that's for another thread.Birdseye wrote:However, in corporations although anyone can buy a share, generally a small circle of people stand to profit exponentially higher than average joe who has 10 shares or 100 shares of microsoft.
Well, touche. I had assumed, apparently wrongly, that your casting a vote in the direction of Nader would mean that you would not be casting a vote in favor of Kerry. The last data I recall on this is that Nader voters, sans Nader, split two to one in favor of Gore in 2000. Meaning -- that for every three votes for Nader, two more would have gone to Gore without him.Birdseye wrote: BD said: "In the short term, it's a lost vote. I think it's hard to disagree there."
With all due respect, I find it to be quite easy. The democratic party is having to check itself and worry about Nader. Two, three percent, that could decide the next election. Nader matters, whether you like it or not.
Soooooooooo... I naturally assumed that you were voting for Nader in order to elect him -- not to demolish the Democratic candidate's chances of winning, which is the practical effect.
You're a good egg, Birdseye. And you're very scrappy. I guess I am tougher on you, because I know how bright you are. I also believe (and this is just my opinion -- there's a round file for it if you feel the urge), that occasionally you will post first, think later. I do the same thing sometimes, but not so often in my old age.Birdseye wrote: I also request that you treat me as an intellectual equal, rather than a some generic college liberal, which seems to be an 'easy out' for many of the older conservatives I argue with. I apologize if I'm mistaken here.
I'm a fan of critical thinking, and you're fully equipped for it. *(Apply it everywhere, urged BD.) I admire that you throw out original ideas for the sharks to bite on. Really. I don't think you're generic anything, but I'll try to keep you honest (and I know you will with me). And I'll certainly try to be less . . . abrasive.
And I also must ask of you ... that while you're kicking my *** in Veins, that you smile while you're doing it.
BD
"...that occasionally you will post first, think later"
This is true. Not in so much that the opinion I present isn't one I have thought out well, but perhaps I present it in less than tactful ways, and rethink my presentation later.
"And I also must ask of you ... that while you're kicking my *** in Veins, that you smile while you're doing it. "
Believe me, I will
Thanks for keeping me honest with the criticism as well.
"Soooooooooo... I naturally assumed that you were voting for Nader in order to elect him -- not to demolish the Democratic candidate's chances of winning, which is the practical effect."
The democratic party is frequently the first adpoter of social change. Republicans tend to be more reactionary against change, democrats being more 'progressive' though this is a great over-generalization that anyone could poke a thousand holes into, but maybe you see my point. If there is a party that may adopt some of the social and political agenda that I believe in, it's more likely to be the democrats.
Not that the republicans are useless, they present a counterweight to causing change too fast for the country to handle. And not that the democrats are coming up with a bunch of intelligent ideas or anything either. Man, if the republicans actually stuck to some of their values (states rights, smaller government, fiscal responsibility) they might actually get my vote! But it's all political lies. Fiscal responsible they are not (neither are the dems) and states rights they do no support (they selectively support it when it fits their agenda).
And so the Dems deserve it when they fail to adopt enough of the current social influx. This year's democrats may lose because their policies are so wishy washy and namby-pamby and undifferentiated. They are hoping to jump on the anybody but Bush bandwagon without really proposing anything radical. I think this non-risk taking approach is really a great risk. What issue does Kerry really have to ride Bush on?
Bush has done a great job of pulling the patriotism card on the dems so that they are stuck going along with the war and other hot button issues. I think many liberals who used to view the democrats as a progressive party that adopted social change are pretty disallusioned. Clinton era democrats were promised quite a bit of change (especially in gay rights) and were sorely dissapointed when he actually went in office. The dems are trying to play a slightly off-centrist balancing act; they want to keep the liberals who have a social agenda on board (abortion issues doing most of this, as many women seem to be one candidate voters) but at the same time not scare off middle america by being 'unpatriotic' and not supporting the troops, or painting a less than flattering picture of america.
I think the Dems learned a lot from Reagan's presidency.I think reagan won because he put the US back on top. He was patriotic, believed in america and made you feel good inside to be in american. The republicans have mastered the ego-defense appeal (it's easier to massage the ego than tell it less than pleasant realities). The dems like Kerry are trying on the same pants, but they fucked up; they are making fools of themselves by making them look like republicans and crying *but we still are for abortion, gun control, and a slightly different tax policy*
The big reason I'm voting for nader because he is the *only one* that is a publicized candidate that is telling the truth about the political system. I find his economic policies frequently to be idealistic to the point of being silly, but his political ideas are dead-on. Maybe the dems will take note of his agenda in order to absorb him eventually, but probably not. He's taking such intelligent shots that really are about the dissolving of the 2 party system (barriers to entry to voting, winner take all, etc.) that I doubt the dems would really absorb those things, which threaten them. However, even if it takes another Bush victory to cause some change, then so be it. The current Kerry campaign reeks of such a shade of Bush I really don't care much if he is elected, other than we'd look much better abroad if we ousted bush. Oh, and Kerry probably isn't dumb enough to throw out speeches that accomplish nothing but hatred for us like "axis of evil".
Kerry, lesser of two evils? Sure, but the Devil lite isn't getting my vote.
This is true. Not in so much that the opinion I present isn't one I have thought out well, but perhaps I present it in less than tactful ways, and rethink my presentation later.
"And I also must ask of you ... that while you're kicking my *** in Veins, that you smile while you're doing it. "
Believe me, I will
Thanks for keeping me honest with the criticism as well.
"Soooooooooo... I naturally assumed that you were voting for Nader in order to elect him -- not to demolish the Democratic candidate's chances of winning, which is the practical effect."
The democratic party is frequently the first adpoter of social change. Republicans tend to be more reactionary against change, democrats being more 'progressive' though this is a great over-generalization that anyone could poke a thousand holes into, but maybe you see my point. If there is a party that may adopt some of the social and political agenda that I believe in, it's more likely to be the democrats.
Not that the republicans are useless, they present a counterweight to causing change too fast for the country to handle. And not that the democrats are coming up with a bunch of intelligent ideas or anything either. Man, if the republicans actually stuck to some of their values (states rights, smaller government, fiscal responsibility) they might actually get my vote! But it's all political lies. Fiscal responsible they are not (neither are the dems) and states rights they do no support (they selectively support it when it fits their agenda).
And so the Dems deserve it when they fail to adopt enough of the current social influx. This year's democrats may lose because their policies are so wishy washy and namby-pamby and undifferentiated. They are hoping to jump on the anybody but Bush bandwagon without really proposing anything radical. I think this non-risk taking approach is really a great risk. What issue does Kerry really have to ride Bush on?
Bush has done a great job of pulling the patriotism card on the dems so that they are stuck going along with the war and other hot button issues. I think many liberals who used to view the democrats as a progressive party that adopted social change are pretty disallusioned. Clinton era democrats were promised quite a bit of change (especially in gay rights) and were sorely dissapointed when he actually went in office. The dems are trying to play a slightly off-centrist balancing act; they want to keep the liberals who have a social agenda on board (abortion issues doing most of this, as many women seem to be one candidate voters) but at the same time not scare off middle america by being 'unpatriotic' and not supporting the troops, or painting a less than flattering picture of america.
I think the Dems learned a lot from Reagan's presidency.I think reagan won because he put the US back on top. He was patriotic, believed in america and made you feel good inside to be in american. The republicans have mastered the ego-defense appeal (it's easier to massage the ego than tell it less than pleasant realities). The dems like Kerry are trying on the same pants, but they fucked up; they are making fools of themselves by making them look like republicans and crying *but we still are for abortion, gun control, and a slightly different tax policy*
The big reason I'm voting for nader because he is the *only one* that is a publicized candidate that is telling the truth about the political system. I find his economic policies frequently to be idealistic to the point of being silly, but his political ideas are dead-on. Maybe the dems will take note of his agenda in order to absorb him eventually, but probably not. He's taking such intelligent shots that really are about the dissolving of the 2 party system (barriers to entry to voting, winner take all, etc.) that I doubt the dems would really absorb those things, which threaten them. However, even if it takes another Bush victory to cause some change, then so be it. The current Kerry campaign reeks of such a shade of Bush I really don't care much if he is elected, other than we'd look much better abroad if we ousted bush. Oh, and Kerry probably isn't dumb enough to throw out speeches that accomplish nothing but hatred for us like "axis of evil".
Kerry, lesser of two evils? Sure, but the Devil lite isn't getting my vote.
So your intent isn't to elect a new party, but just "rattle the cages" of the two existing ones? That you want to vote 3rd party to get the Dems and the Reps to think about new issues and reevaluate their views on old ones? I guess I can respect that."Wont the corporations then assault him like they do all other politicians? "
Absolutely right. I believe we also need fundamental changes in the way our political system works.
Third parties have had quite a bit of sway in the past-- the quickest way I can explain it is that if a third party begins to surge in the polls, the big 2 simply adopt the 3rd parties' hot button issues. Example: Ross Perot, balanced budget (Where are you now, Ross). Crazy as **** but perot had a point. He ran a business and had balanced a check book like most americans and realized, hey it's bad for the country to continue amassing a gigantic debt. You saw Clinton and Dole scramble with their own balanced budget proposals.
But for some reason when I think "3rd party," I think of trying to reduce corporate influence. Perhaps that is just a false judgment on my part, but it always seems like those two are argued together.
"Vote 3rd party, reduce corporate influence!" This is where I don't understand how one could possibly help the other. Corporations will go after anyone with power. It is up to the individual to look the other way. You need $ to get elected, and in a capitalistic society I just don't see how that can be changed. Reducing the debt (Nader) is vastly different from telling the fat cats that they can no longer use thier power!
These questions and statements arenâ??t meant to, "prove you wrong." I don't know the 3rd party arguments to have really even developed a position on this topic. If responding to this would be to long for an Internet post, then if you could just recommend a website to go through I would appreciate it.
The primary intent is certainly to rattle the cages, from a realistic standpoint. It would be lovely to elect a third party candidate too, of course. I think the balance between ralph nader as president and the republican controlled congress would be lovely
"But for some reason when I think "3rd party," I think of trying to reduce corporate influence. Perhaps that is just a false judgment on my part, but it always seems like those two are argued together. "
Well, that is a common reason why, especially lately, people are voting for third parties. However it wasn't the reason for the largest third party vote in a long time, which went to Perot (Mr. big business himself).
"You need $ to get elected, and in a capitalistic society I just don't see how that can be changed."
Well, that's something we really need to all get together and talk about. Perhaps all influence of money cannot be removed, but I think we can all agree serious improvements could be made.
If you want more information on 3rd party impact, check the presidential elections and the percentage of the popular vote. If you see a few percent for a candidate, check out the race. You'll probably find an issue that was absorbed to make the candidate go away. The dems better do this soon, or ol' Ralphy is going to make it difficult in '04
"But for some reason when I think "3rd party," I think of trying to reduce corporate influence. Perhaps that is just a false judgment on my part, but it always seems like those two are argued together. "
Well, that is a common reason why, especially lately, people are voting for third parties. However it wasn't the reason for the largest third party vote in a long time, which went to Perot (Mr. big business himself).
"You need $ to get elected, and in a capitalistic society I just don't see how that can be changed."
Well, that's something we really need to all get together and talk about. Perhaps all influence of money cannot be removed, but I think we can all agree serious improvements could be made.
If you want more information on 3rd party impact, check the presidential elections and the percentage of the popular vote. If you see a few percent for a candidate, check out the race. You'll probably find an issue that was absorbed to make the candidate go away. The dems better do this soon, or ol' Ralphy is going to make it difficult in '04