The W
Views: 99388453
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
1.10.14 1541
The W - Current Events & Politics - David Kuo rolls on GWB (Page 2)
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.88
Pages: Prev 1 2
(526 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (33 total)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Not to derail this actually civil and good discussion but how in God's name would it benefit our country to fracture into a myriad of parties? We don't have the same two major parties we started with but have gone with two for our history essentially.

And to everyone thinking compromising is necessarily bad, compromise is what politics is. There are lines to be drawn but our country moves forward when we sit down and work toward an acceptable action. And yes I think there are times you can't compromise.




Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.60
    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
      Originally posted by AWArulz
      So you pragmatically vote for the person who best represents you.


      Originally posted by AWArulz
      stay home, save gas. Why bother? On principle?


    This kind of hypocrisy is something only evangelicals seem to be capable of, and that is why you get attacked. Not because Christianity is utterly reviled on American society.

    You want him to stay home so that your side has a better chance at winning, and that's quite transparent by what you've advised here.



You gotta think what you gotta think, but we have a different system here in the states. A two party system. The idealism of guys like SPF aside, I am sure he would agree that a vote for a third party candidate in the states is realistically a non-vote. Really, that was my only point to CRZ, a guy I have sparred with politically for some years.

    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
    To call that noble is laughable. Your agenda at the expense of everyone else's right to express themselves democratically violates the principles your country was founded on.

    The reality is, if you did have a couple of parties split off, the other side wouldn't win (necessarily).


realistically, that isn't going to happen in our country except in the cases I stated in the part you didn't quote.

    Originally posted by Hogan's My Dad
    Multi-party is still a more effective form of governance than what you have in the States.


Idealism's fun, isn't it? Realism's tougher, though. It's not going to happen here. For better or worse.

(edited by AWArulz on 17.10.06 1252)


Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 22 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.51
I think the benefit of having multiple parties would be that a wider diversity a views could be represented than we currently have now. I think quite a few people are finding that they really don't have a home in either major party right now. Democrats may have reason to compromise with Republicans, and Republicans may have reason to compromise with Democrats, but what incentive does either of those two parties have to compromise with anyone else? And since other parties outside of the big two really don't have a chance, they choose to check out of the process altogether. But we won't have multiple parties not necessarily because it is what's best, but because of how the rules of the game are set up is going to naturally lead to two parties.



The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 430 days
Last activity: 390 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.12
The problem I have, AWARulz, is that the winning politician always seems to think he has a mandate to get all of his policies enacted. For instance, if I had voted for Kerry and he got elected, I would be voting for his foreign affairs stance, but I'd be stuck with his stance on budget policy.

As a libertarian, the 2004 election was like choosing between a punch in the gut and a kick in the crotch. They both were going to spend money in ways that I wasn't going to like, and my only hope was to figure out which way was going to hurt less.

A choice between a candidate who is a 46% match for my views and a candidate who is a 20% match (according to selectsmart.com's 2004 Election) is hardly worth choosing at all, so I express my displeasure with the whole system by voting 3rd party.

By the way:
http://the-w.com/thread.php/id=22437&page=1#262742

    Originally posted by AWARulz

    I just want everyone to vote. I'm willing to trust the electorate with my life and my sacred honor - to paraphrase another guy from back in the day.


Except for those stupid 3rd-party voters, eh?

(edited by Mr. Boffo on 17.10.06 0800)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Mr. Boffo, come on. All politicians claim a mandate. So what. Are they supposed to say, "Wow, I barely won so I'll be a good boy or girl."?

On a national level, mandates haven't existed since around 1988 when Bush the elder won. We are a polarized nation on many issues and that split isn't likely to end soon.

Having multiple parties would lead to nothing but paralysis. Two parties works pretty well, but they don't have to be Dem and Rep.

And not that he needs defending, but AWA's point is valid. I don't agree as I vote third party fairly often. I also realize it is merely symbolic.

Where we really disagree is that I don't want EVERYONE to vote but all INFORMED everyones.



Perception is reality
rinberg
Boudin rouge








Since: 30.1.02
From: South Georgia

Since last post: 996 days
Last activity: 33 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.82
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
      Originally posted by AWARulz

      I just want everyone to vote. I'm willing to trust the electorate with my life and my sacred honor - to paraphrase another guy from back in the day.

    Except for those stupid 3rd-party voters, eh?
    (edited by Mr. Boffo on 17.10.06 0800)


AWARulz wasn't trying to dissuade anyone from voting. He was expressing the opinion that voting for a person whom you *know* will only receive 2 or 3% of the popular vote is not beneficial to your cause. Sometimes, a third party candidate will siphon enough votes from one of the major candidates to cause them to lose. Ask Al Gore how he feels about Ralph Nader. Now, ask the people that voted for Ralph Nader whether they would prefer Gore or Bush. I can't prove whether it did or didn't make a difference, but that was the point that AWARulz was making. Vote your conscience, but be pragmatic about it.



"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." --Rick Cook


kaynart. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 1 day
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
Except for those stupid 3rd-party voters, eh?

This comment/implication has come up a couple of times, and I don't see where AWA seriously suggested people shouldn't vote. Rather, that he thinks it's a waste of a vote to vote Libertarian. I can understand that sentiment, even though I don't agree with it.

I'm someone who's both voted Libertarian and donated money to the LP. However, one problem is not just that the candidates don't expect to win, but that they don't make a serious attempt to reach voters.

For example, the Dallas paper has been running articles on the various candidates running for Governor, Rep, etc. And, more often than not, the comment about the Libertarian is that they tried to contact the candidate but he didn't return their phone calls or emails. And, in a couple of cases, the candidate was invited to sit with the paper's editorial board and didn't do so. It's one thing to work for change, but you have to take free publicity, especially when it's offered by the paper with the largest circulation in the state. I'm predisposed to vote for the party, but they have to make some sort of credible effort.

One last thing, multi-party is overrated. In Texas, we have four more or less serious candidates for governor. The Republican (incumbent Rick Perry), Democrat (Chris Bell), and two independents, which is where the color lies. One is Carole Strayhorn (who wanted to be listed as 'Grandma Strayhorn' on the ballot, bringing back memories of Texas History with Mrs. Baxter and the Ma & Pa Ferguson political machine, and whose website is onetoughgrandma.com) and the other is Kinky Friedman, who is far too colorful to explain in a parenthetical--basically he makes Jesse Ventura seem like a shrinking violet. The bottom line is that all these candidates suck for one reason or other. And, the Libertarian candidate can't be bothered to get back to the Dallas Morning News. One of these will get my vote, but I can't for the life of me figure out who deserves it less.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 63 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Mr. Boffo, come on. All politicians claim a mandate. So what. Are they supposed to say, "Wow, I barely won so I'll be a good boy or girl."?

    On a national level, mandates haven't existed since around 1988 when Bush the elder won. We are a polarized nation on many issues and that split isn't likely to end soon.

    Having multiple parties would lead to nothing but paralysis. Two parties works pretty well, but they don't have to be Dem and Rep.

    And not that he needs defending, but AWA's point is valid. I don't agree as I vote third party fairly often. I also realize it is merely symbolic.

    Where we really disagree is that I don't want EVERYONE to vote but all INFORMED everyones.

The idea that multiple parties would lead to paralysis is proven wrong by damn near every other democracy in the world. Unless the implication is that we here in the USA are so damn bullheaded that having to do more than simply have a good Whip for the majority party would be too hard for us to figure out.

If anything, multiple parties would likely mean greater flexibility to get things done. Right now there's the majority party who has their platform, and basically their only job is to keep their party in line enough to pass what they want. If no one group could pass things of their own accord you might see things things that appeal to more than party leadership, or a narrow interest group inside the party, or a major party contributor be what gets through.

Also, I imagine you would likely see greater political involvement. How many people do not vote for the reason some people here have said, there's no one who they want to support? Or because they know what they believe won't win, so they stay home.

I know this won't happen. The system as it is built is designed to keep any third party very small so as to maintain a two party structure. But what will be and what should be are not the same thing. I suspect one day in the future you will see a person or people with resources and the lack of Perot-esque insanity come along and start a true third party movement, which would be a start. In a culture where we obsessively consume in ways tailored exactly to our taste in every other medium, I cannot imagine a political system which is simply an endless series of holding your nose and voting for the least unappetizing choice lasting in perpetuity.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.35
Spf, I look at countries where they must constantly bind together several small parties to form a working majority. One gets pissed and back to square one. At least the leader of the government isn't tied to the majority in the legislature.

Third parties have thrived for brief periods and often their ideas moved the big two to change or as has happened, they supplant and destroy one of the big boys.


And honestly spf, as long as many have food, clothing, the crap they want, etc., they don't get involved in politics. Often they use the things you cited as excuses and wouldn't get involved no matter what.

Having said all that, I think a strong third party would help the country alot either by moving one or both of the big two or by supplanting one of them.



Perception is reality
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    By the way:
    http://the-w.com/thread.php/id=22437&page=1#262742

      Originally posted by AWARulz

      I just want everyone to vote. I'm willing to trust the electorate with my life and my sacred honor - to paraphrase another guy from back in the day.


    Except for those stupid 3rd-party voters, eh?


Touche. But I don't mind if you vote for the losertarians. It's inconsequential. As I said, if that is your intention, because you want to improve the country, you probably can improve it more by staying home and not using the gas and adding to the existing congestion. Vote away. Then read the ad later in the paper from the party telling you that so and so got a whole 3.14% of the vote. The people have Mumbled!

    Originally posted by spf
    The idea that multiple parties would lead to paralysis is proven wrong by damn near every other democracy in the world.


We aren't a stinking democracy, thank Jefferson. We're a representative republic.

    Originally posted by spf

    I know this won't happen. The system as it is built is designed to keep any third party very small so as to maintain a two party structure. But what will be and what should be are not the same thing.


Now we agree. Hey, look, if we had 3 or 4 viable parties that had enough support to DO anything, of course, I would be in a more conservative party. I am, of course, I am a part of the conservative wing of the republicans. Me and Lindsey Graham are NOT in the same party (He's a democrat that takes the name Republican for some reason), but we form a coalition within the context of the Republican party.




(edited by AWArulz on 17.10.06 1254)


Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
Please stop calling them Losertarians. It's not witty and its annoying.

This country needs a critical mass of 3rd party voters in order for the "sheeple" (see how annoying this gets?) to decide that they aren't "Wasting their vote". The reality is if people don't vote 3rd party and get the vote from 1% to 2%, then 3%, then 5%... it will never happen.

It takes bravery to stand for your convictions in the light of a guaranteed defeat. We used to applaud that in America.

But feel free to keep supporting a system where two groups can overlook each other's sins and line their own pockets at the expense of the greater good. The fact that everyone knows there are wastes like the bridge to nowhere, but no one in Congress can get them eliminated, tells you exactly why the two party duopoly is flawed.

PS> In any other industry besides politics, we would have anti-trust legislation keeping a duopoly out of power like this. Good thing Politicians can be trusted to check their own power.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.04
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"They're plump, ripe, and priced to move. Get your fat Samoan today!" (Packman V2)


    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    This country needs a critical mass of 3rd party voters in order for the "sheeple" (see how annoying this gets?) to decide that they aren't "Wasting their vote". The reality is if people don't vote 3rd party and get the vote from 1% to 2%, then 3%, then 5%... it will never happen.


And that's where the whole "don't waste your gas if you know the guy's gonna lose" argument breaks down. If a candidate or third party is going to get any traction, it's not going to happen over just one election. It's going to happen from the voters coming to the party in numbers over time. The political arena isn't exactly the NFL; it takes time to build something consequential.





AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.59
(deleted by AWArulz on 17.10.06 2242)
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 6.88
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: Fidel Castro in Central Park
Next thread: Clear Channel Considers Sale
Previous thread: Alright, now it's Personal GOP! (Online Gaming Ban)
(526 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/02/sotu.transcript/ I thought it was a decent speech but I don't really have any clue where he is going with Social Security and didn't explain it very well last night.
The W - Current Events & Politics - David Kuo rolls on GWB (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.156 seconds.