Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress?


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Darkwing Duck wrote:
How is that difference relevant to what the Founding Fathers said? How does it necessitate changing what the Founding Fathers said?

Because the Founding Fathers had a bunch of lamebrained ideas. For example, Jefferson believed that the highest form of society was agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens. The only way a farmer has the leisure to also be a philosopher, though, is if all the farming is done by slaves.

There have been more than 200 years of philosophical, economic, and political thought since the founding fathers died. Try to keep up.


A Man In Black wrote:


Because the Founding Fathers had a bunch of lamebrained ideas. For example, Jefferson believed that the highest form of society was agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens. The only way a farmer has the leisure to also be a philosopher, though, is if all the farming is done by slaves.

There have been more than 200 years of philosophical, economic, and political thought since the founding fathers died. Try to keep up.

Jefferson's belief that a society of agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens is ideal is not and has not been in any way relevant to what is actually being discussed here - the value of libertarianism and objectivism.

Try to be relevant and topical.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


Because the Founding Fathers had a bunch of lamebrained ideas. For example, Jefferson believed that the highest form of society was agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens. The only way a farmer has the leisure to also be a philosopher, though, is if all the farming is done by slaves.

There have been more than 200 years of philosophical, economic, and political thought since the founding fathers died. Try to keep up.

Jefferson's belief that a society of agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens is ideal is not and has not been in any way relevant to what is actually being discussed here - the value of libertarianism and objectivism.

Try to be relevant and topical.

Frogboy brought it up. I told him it was irrelevant.

Now you're scolding AMiB and I like children as if we were the ones to bring it up.
*throws hands in the air*


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I largely agree, I'd rather see a significant portion of the military budget shifted to something like NASA. Doubling NASA's budget solely for the purposes of getting to Mars would have amazing effects on our economy in the long run. There are benefits to the military spending, but they're less than a lot of other things. Contracts with arms manufacturers create jobs, but the products themselves don't add to the economy much.
Actually if you're looking for spending that feeds back to the domestic economy, the better bet would be in investing in infrastructure which returns the most in basic jobs. and builds up general economy. Funding for NASA has it's place but the returns are not what it's advocates tend to claim.

I think that's really hard to judge accurately. I'll concede the returns aren't 14:1, like some suggest, but NASA research has led to a 98% reduction in wet road accidents where safety grooving has been implemented in California. NASA projects have extreme demands, it's where theoretical science and engineering meet with a lot of success and have given us a lot of technology. Going to Mars is also less violent than starting another war.

The safety grooving has also reduced plane crashes and meat packing plant accidents. And that is just one of many innovations (developed during the shuttle era as well, because the shuttles high speed landing made it more susceptible to hydroplaning).

Also, I'm not saying we should shift all of the military budget to NASA, but rather just doubling it, making it 1% of the total budget and devoting those funds to a Mars mission.

I'd like to see NASA's mission get shifted into promoting companies focused on private space missions such as they do with the Centennial Challenges.

There is a lot of ways to do it, I'd want to see some data on the advancement rate of those challenges versus a more vertical integration of leadership, goals and progress. I think a major shift of taking defense contractors and repurposing them to do work for NASA isn't that big of a leap and could provide us excellent returns without causing any sort of big upheaval in the private sector.

A NASA-industrial complex at first glance seems a lot less onerous than a military-industrial one. It justifies itself by reaching new worlds instead of killing people.


Irontruth wrote:


I think that's really hard to judge accurately. I'll concede the returns aren't 14:1, like some suggest, but NASA research has led to a 98% reduction in wet road accidents where safety grooving has been implemented in California. NASA projects have extreme demands, it's where theoretical science and engineering meet with a lot of success and have given us a lot of technology. Going to Mars is also less violent than starting another war.

The safety grooving has also reduced plane crashes and meat packing plant accidents. And that is just one of many innovations (developed during the shuttle era as well, because the shuttles high speed landing made it more susceptible to hydroplaning).

Also, I'm not saying we should shift all of the military budget to NASA, but rather just doubling it, making it 1% of the total budget and devoting those funds to a Mars mission.

I'd like to see NASA's mission get shifted into promoting companies focused on private space missions such as they do with the Centennial Challenges. There is a lot of ways to do it, I'd want to see some data on the advancement rate of those challenges versus a more vertical integration of leadership,...

There's no real value in reaching new worlds, though.

It puts no food on anyone's table. It puts no clothes on anyone.

Yes, we need near earth space research (geared towards putting up communications/weather/etc. satellites as cheaply as possible). Beyond that, there's not much value. We didn't need NASA in order to create improvements in wet road tech.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Darkwing Duck wrote:

There's no real value in reaching new worlds, though.

It puts no food on anyone's table. It puts no clothes on anyone.

You are posting this on a microcomputer which is the direct result of research done to make the last first-time trip to another world possible.


A Man In Black wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There's no real value in reaching new worlds, though.

It puts no food on anyone's table. It puts no clothes on anyone.

You are posting this on a microcomputer which is the direct result of research done to make the last first-time trip to another world possible.

If you want me to believe that the only possible way the research required to make computers came about was space research you're going to have to try harder than that.

We had substantial computer research before the space program. There was a significant economic incentive to make computers more available and cheaper.


Darkwing Duck wrote:


There's no real value in reaching new worlds, though.

It puts no food on anyone's table. It puts no clothes on anyone.

Yes, we need near earth space research (geared towards putting up communications/weather/etc. satellites as cheaply as possible). Beyond that, there's not much value. We didn't need NASA in order to create improvements in wet road tech.

Except NASA is where we got the tech to make wet roads safer. You can't just wish it away. The point of the wet roads tech is that there are unknowable advances that will be made.

For example, protecting an astronaut from radiation will probably lead to a greater understanding of said radiation, magnetism and possibly gravity in general. Those are 3 extremely prevalent things on our word, I guarantee that a deeper understanding of them will lead to a better quality of life on this planet.

If space is commercially viable, a business man is going to take advantage of it. We don't need NASA to be their crutch. We need NASA to provide us with advances that make new things possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:


We need NASA to provide us with advances that make new things possible.

You can successfully defend the claim that NASA has created new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

But, what you have NOT done is proven that NASA is -required- in order to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry or, even, that it is the -best- way to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.


Darkwing Duck wrote:


But, what you have NOT done is proven that NASA is -required- in order to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry or, even, that it is the -best- way to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

Nor do we have to. You can insist that innovations would have been made without NASA to make them, but you can't prove it. It is, however, beyond needing to be proven that NASA has fostered innumerable innovations, many of which you use daily.

It may not be the theoretical best way for X or Y, but that's an absurd standard by which something's usefulness is to be proven. NASA has been immeasurably useful.

I can't prove that NASA would be -required- for us to have a satellite system in place. What I can tell you is that without NASA we wouldn't.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


We need NASA to provide us with advances that make new things possible.

You can successfully defend the claim that NASA has created new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

But, what you have NOT done is proven that NASA is -required- in order to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry or, even, that it is the -best- way to make new stuff that is used outside of the space industry.

I never said it was required. I've merely pointed out the historical benefits.

Since you're admitting the historical trend of NASA's advancements, why are you opposed to trying to continue them?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There was plenty of workk being done to male computers more powerful and flexible.

There wasn't a whole lot to make them smaller or more energy efficient.

Also, there's no money in pure research. The only place that did a lot of it was the old Bell/Lucent labs and only because Ma Bell used it as a cash hole because they had a legal limit on their profits when they were a monopoly.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Darkwing Duck wrote:

Speaking of libertarianism, I think of Ayn Rand.

You are citing Atlas Shrugged?Seriously?

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

There's no real value in reaching new worlds, though.

It puts no food on anyone's table. It puts no clothes on anyone.

You are posting this on a microcomputer which is the direct result of research done to make the last first-time trip to another world possible.

Come on now, it isn't like our planet is at risk of being hit with an object that would kill us all. Couldn't possibly happen again, right?

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


Frogboy said: Again, you're comparing it to modern times. 80 hour work weeks were much better then the 0 hour work weeks which is what a lot of other countries had to offer their poor. People eventually formed unions. They fought for better working conditions. They fought for more reasonable hours and hourly wages. Of course, maybe they didn't even have to. The "evil corporations" eventually realized that working people for more than 40 hours per week reduced productivity. They may have even figured out that paying people more money increased productivity as well."

So, in the US, IIRC, the eight-hour workday was first won in Chicago in, like, 1886.

In 2012, some Facebook executive punches out at 5:30 and this is proof that the capitalists have realized that 40+ hours a week reduces productivity? Then why does every manufacturing job I've ever applied for work 12 hour shifts? Why do UPS drivers and auto workers and Budweiser employees routinely do 50-60 hours weeks, etc.?

Sure, many employers now refuse to let you go over 40/week, but I think that has more to do with not paying overtime than some enlightened understanding about reduced productivity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Frogboy said: Again, you're comparing it to modern times. 80 hour work weeks were much better then the 0 hour work weeks which is what a lot of other countries had to offer their poor. People eventually formed unions. They fought for better working conditions. They fought for more reasonable hours and hourly wages. Of course, maybe they didn't even have to. The "evil corporations" eventually realized that working people for more than 40 hours per week reduced productivity. They may have even figured out that paying people more money increased productivity as well."

So, in the US, IIRC, the eight-hour workday was first won in Chicago in, like, 1886.

In 2012, some Facebook executive punches out at 5:30 and this is proof that the capitalists have realized that 40+ hours a week reduces productivity? Then why does every manufacturing job I've ever applied for work 12 hour shifts? Why do UPS drivers and auto workers and Budweiser employees routinely do 50-60 hours weeks, etc.?

Sure, many employers now refuse to let you go over 40/week, but I think that has more to do with not paying overtime than some enlightened understanding about reduced productivity.

I love the "evil corporations eventually realized" bit.

a) As the Comrade says, they haven't realized it yet. Even in the US people routinely have to work longer and if you look at what the same corporations make people do in other countries without even our labor protections, it's just like it was back in the bad old days.

b) The changes here didn't happen because the corporations realized anything. They fought them tooth and claw. The unions won contracts that gave them protections and the people, largely led by the unions, pushed the government to pass overtime laws.

I swear the only reason anyone but the obscenely rich are libertarian is that it's been so good in this country so long (relatively speaking) that it's easy to see this as the normal state and not realize how hard we had to fight for what is now the status quo.


thejeff wrote:

I love the "evil corporations eventually realized" bit.

a) As the Comrade says, they haven't realized it yet. Even in the US people routinely have to work longer and if you look at what the same corporations make people do in other countries without even our labor protections, it's just like it was back in the bad old days.

b) The changes here didn't happen because the corporations realized anything. They fought them tooth and claw. The unions won contracts that gave them protections and the people, largely led by the unions, pushed the government to pass overtime laws.

In fact, a few years ago several retail chains lost a class action lawsuit over something very similar to this. Overtime rules do not typically apply to management, so several companies stripped all authority from the store and assistant managers, and had them working as many hours as they could. The employees won the suit, argueing that the word 'management' implies a level of authority which they no longer had (many store managers are unable to hire and fire employees, alter store layout in order to do trivial things like comply with fire code, authorize overtime for hourly employees to cover for someone quitting, without getting permission from higher-ups).

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Frogboy wrote:
Again, you're comparing it to modern times. 80 hour work weeks were much better then the 0 hour work weeks which is what a lot of other countries had to offer their poor.

But not as good as it could be. You want to place the freedom of a very small minority of people to do exactly what they want above the physical well being of millions of people: or you want to pretend that there's absolutely no conflict between the two. Its an alignment conflict between chaotic (freedom) and good. You're dealing with it by pretending that the conflict doesn't exist and that things will be good if we just allow individuals the freedom to do what they want despite every single example of that going horribly wrong.

Quote:
People eventually formed unions. They fought for better working conditions. They fought for more reasonable hours and hourly wages.

What the hell do you think democracy is if not a union writ large?

And its not like the unions tactics would have been effective if they'd been entirely legal.

Quote:
Of course, maybe they didn't even have to. The "evil corporations" eventually realized that working people for more than 40 hours per week reduced productivity. They may have even figured out that paying people more money increased productivity as well.

They did figure it out. The problem is that it doesn't apply when conditions are so bad that its "Work in my factory this hard or starve to death"

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Speaking of libertarianism, I think of Ayn Rand.

You are citing Atlas Shrugged?Seriously?

Sorry, bad link

Fixed?


ciretose wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:

Speaking of libertarianism, I think of Ayn Rand.

You are citing Atlas Shrugged?Seriously?

Sorry, bad link

Fixed?

This is my favorite response to Atlas Shrugged.


Not sure if it was mentioned already, but Democracy Now! did a debate special with two third party candidates, Jill Stein of the Green Party and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party.

Debate with third party candidates

I still think the election itself is hopelessly flawed, but it is refreshing to hear a little honesty in a debate for a change.


Fergie wrote:


I still think the election itself is hopelessly flawed, but it is refreshing to hear a little honesty in a debate for a change.

I mostly like how team red and team blue reveal themselves to be the purple Voltron that they really are whenever third party candidates are brought up.

Dark Archive

TOZ wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ooh ooh! Someone read my mind!
International proletariat socialist revolution?

Nope, you got my mind that time.

Well, that and how to make the monk viable.... wait, wrong thread. *backs away*


No idea what any of this has to do with former military members planning to assassinate the president.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
How is that difference relevant to what the Founding Fathers said? How does it necessitate changing what the Founding Fathers said?

Because the Founding Fathers had a bunch of lamebrained ideas. For example, Jefferson believed that the highest form of society was agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens. The only way a farmer has the leisure to also be a philosopher, though, is if all the farming is done by slaves.

There have been more than 200 years of philosophical, economic, and political thought since the founding fathers died. Try to keep up.

In a very real sense the American Civil War, the bloodiest conflict this country endured in history, can be seen as the final playout of the philosphical differnces between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was thinking ahead towards Wall Street and the Industrial Revolutin, while Jefferson's heart was towards imagined ideals of the feudal age.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting article on the two candidates and media perception.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like this article.

This one's good, too.

Dedicated Voter 2013

Third party voting will matter when enough people vote third party in disgust with the elephants amd donkeys in the room.

Not enough voters have grokked to this fact yet. Until then, third party votes are just that: votes for neither majority party candidate that are insufficient in number to deter the two major parties from going about with business as usual.

Ears in rears, gentlecritters, ears in rears.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
How is that difference relevant to what the Founding Fathers said? How does it necessitate changing what the Founding Fathers said?

Because the Founding Fathers had a bunch of lamebrained ideas. For example, Jefferson believed that the highest form of society was agrarian farmer-philosopher citizens. The only way a farmer has the leisure to also be a philosopher, though, is if all the farming is done by slaves.

There have been more than 200 years of philosophical, economic, and political thought since the founding fathers died. Try to keep up.

In a very real sense the American Civil War, the bloodiest conflict this country endured in history, can be seen as the final playout of the philosphical differnces between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was thinking ahead towards Wall Street and the Industrial Revolutin, while Jefferson's heart was towards imagined ideals of the feudal age.

I would have to disagree with you on the "final" part.

A large part of the current political debate is about the role of government. There is a large segment of the population that genuinely believes that the federal government should play little or no role in the economy, should not pay for public improvements, etc. These are people who are the philosophical descendants of Jefferson. One could argue that Romney's Healthcare solution in Massachusetts is Jeffersonian, in a federal sense: he says it is great for his state, but shouldn't be applied to all 50 of them or at a federal level.

Others, and the majority view, are on the side of Hamilton - they support federal spending in a manner that was far beyond even Hamilton's conception of it.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
A large part of the current political debate is about the role of government. There is a large segment of the population that genuinely believes that the federal government should play little or no role in the economy, should not pay for public improvements, etc.

Its actually a very small segment. Most of it just doesn't want any role being played in paying out money to people that aren't them.


I have always preferred Hamilton to Jefferson. I have also always preferred Burr to Hamilton, but that's probably only because of the novel.

I, of course, prefer Thomas Paine to all of them...

Vive le Galt!

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its actually a very small segment. Most of it just doesn't want any role being played in paying out money to people that aren't them.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner, folks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yakman wrote:
A large part of the current political debate is about the role of government. There is a large segment of the population that genuinely believes that the federal government should play little or no role in the economy, should not pay for public improvements, etc.
Its actually a very small segment. Most of it just doesn't want any role being played in paying out money to people that aren't them.

well, that was always the point, wasn't it?

Jefferson was rich, and from the south. He didn't need gov't money - and the south has lots of big navigable rivers so they didn't need gov't roads.

Hamilton, Adams, and Clay (and Lincoln) were from the North. They didn't have a ton of money. The North doesn't have so many great rivers - Lincoln recalled watching crops rot in the fields because farmers couldn't get them to market because the roads were so bad. It was one of the reasons he favored the Whig party over the democratic.

I wouldn't say it is a "small segment" either. If it were, why would Romney have stupidly made the "47%" comment - or why would people be so angry about Obama's "you didn't build it" statement? To argue that the Civil War ended the conversation about the role of the federal government is not taking a serious look at the political debates since then, from FDR taking on the courts to the Civil Rights Movement to the present day.


I could be wrong, but I thought:

Hamilton was rich. Born a poor bastard in a sugar colony, but I thought he'd made some dough by 1776.

Adams was rich.

Don't know about Clay, but Lincoln was from humble beginnings but was well-off by the time he went into politics.

But, yes, industrial capitalism needed a lot more government spending (and a civil war) to really get going.

EDIT:

Wikipedia page

I'm not saying he's one of my heroes or nothing, but Alexander Hamilton was pretty badass.

Looks like he wasn't rich yet, though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I could be wrong, but I thought:

Hamilton was rich. Born a poor bastard in a sugar colony, but I thought he'd made some dough by 1776.

Adams was rich.

Don't know about Clay, but Lincoln was from humble beginnings but was well-off by the time he went into politics.

But, yes, industrial capitalism needed a lot more government spending (and a civil war) to really get going.

EDIT:

Wikipedia page

I'm not saying he's one of my heroes or nothing, but Alexander Hamilton was pretty badass.

Hamilton was pretty cool.

Adams was rich only because he made himself so - his father was a farmer - prosperous, but a farmer nonetheless. Lincoln was a lawyer, but never wealthy. Mary Todd was trying to get gov't money to pay for her clothes because they were so out-of-date and unfashionable. She racked up huge debts just trying to make the Lincolns presentable in Washington.


Yakman wrote:
Lincoln was a lawyer, but never wealthy. Mary Todd was trying to get gov't money to pay for her clothes because they were so out-of-date and unfashionable. She racked up huge debts just trying to make the Lincolns presentable in Washington.

On the other hand, he married a Todd.

But, you're right, those dudes were never as wealthy as Jefferson and the other slaveowners.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Yakman wrote:
I wouldn't say it is a "small segment" either. If it were, why would Romney have stupidly made the "47%" comment - or why would people be so angry about Obama's "you didn't build it" statement? To argue that the Civil War ended the conversation about the role of the federal government is not taking a serious look at the political debates since then, from FDR taking on the courts to the Civil Rights Movement to the present day.

That's not exactly what I intended to imply. The Civil War settled the question whether the United States would be a loose confederation of states like Yugoslavia, or a fully unified country that would wield influence as a single entity. The question you're thinking of is more of a Roosevelt vs. Hoover issue as opposed to the Feudalism vs. Capitalism of the Jefferson/Hamilton divide.

It would be Franklin Roosevelt who would establish the government as bulwark for the concerns of the non-elite citizenry.


Indeed. The needs and wants of the 99% will and always have been opposed to the wants of the 1%. All the arguments about states rights and whatnot disproportionately serve the 1%. The crazy thing is that the economic elites have convinced the underclass that it is immoral for them to want more than they have, hence the bifurcated Republican party of ultra rich and ultra poor.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Indeed. The needs and wants of the 99% will and always have been opposed to the wants of the 1%. All the arguments about states rights and whatnot disproportionately serve the 1%. The crazy thing is that the economic elites have convinced the underclass that it is immoral for them to want more than they have, hence the bifurcated Republican party of ultra rich and ultra poor.

I don't think you understand the demographics of the GOP.

Additionally, arguments about states rights are not about some amorphous 1% national cabal. These enormous issues are a lot more complicated than such reductionism, although they are almost certainly always about money.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Indeed. The needs and wants of the 99% will and always have been opposed to the wants of the 1%. All the arguments about states rights and whatnot disproportionately serve the 1%. The crazy thing is that the economic elites have convinced the underclass that it is immoral for them to want more than they have, hence the bifurcated Republican party of ultra rich and ultra poor.

I don't think you understand the demographics of the GOP.

Additionally, arguments about states rights are not about some amorphous 1% national cabal. These enormous issues are a lot more complicated than such reductionism, although they are almost certainly always about money.

I think I understand the demographics of the GOP rather well.

The very rich, the undereducated poor, and the fanatically religious middle class.

You missed my entire point, however. This Libertarian small government meme has spread too far. The first thought I have is, sure, every state should have the right to govern itself, it's right there in the constitution!

Then I look at the sorts of things that states rights proponents actually want the states to exercise for themselves. Well, they want to be able to pay women and minorities less. They want to allow more pollution and other means of ecological devastation; to pimp themselves to the corporations. They want to eliminate the department of education and be able to teach children how they want...which invariably means religious indoctrination (and when that doesn't fly they just funnel money to churches via school voucher programs). They want to be able to independently legislate on abortion issues (i.e. ignore/circumvent roe v. wade).

Virtually every "states rights" issue I hear brought up is really just a mask for returning the country to the "good old days" of robber barons, segregation, inequality of sexes, rivers that catch fire, etc.

But I won't put words in your mouth: in what ways will repealing this sort of legislation, and reaffirming states rights, make life better for individuals in those states? What federal statutes do you want to reappropriate to state legislatures?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
C'mon, guys, we're all gamers. Put a little of that game theory thinking to use.

LOL. Munchkin your vote.

Stereofm wrote:

As an European, I usually have about 20 parties to choose from. Of course, two or three of them are usually favourites. It's been taht way for ages. Guess what ? it still works out.

Best of luck in the election.

I wish we had a parliament in America. It makes so much more sense. "I disagree with party A on issue X, and I disagree with party B on issue Y." In America you are SOL. In the rest of the civilized world, that means voting for party C, and as long as party C meets some minimum threshold of votes (typically something like 5%), they get a vote in parliament. Much smarter.

Works great in theory but in reality that is how you get really fringe elements in a government. Its amazing how easy it is to reach that 1% or 5% threshold and do we really want a clan party with 10 representatives in Congress the way you get communists or neo-fascists or muslim brotherhood or hamas in the parliaments of Europe and the middle east. Not to mention what happens when you need those people to form a majority coalition and they demand positions in the government in return.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:


Works great in theory but in reality that is how you get really fringe elements in a government. Its amazing how easy it is to reach that 1% or 5% threshold and do we really want a clan party with 10 representatives in Congress the way you get communists or neo-fascists or muslim brotherhood or hamas in the parliaments of Europe and the middle east. Not to mention what happens when you need those people to form a majority coalition and they demand positions in the government in return.

And how is that worse than the way we have it now?

The way it works now is:
1)Lunatic fringe arises.
2)Lunatic fringe gains traction, because Americans are, by and large, kinda dumb.
3)Lunatic fringe becomes large enough to swing election, so one party or the other incorporates its stances into its platform to keep from losing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:


Works great in theory but in reality that is how you get really fringe elements in a government. Its amazing how easy it is to reach that 1% or 5% threshold and do we really want a clan party with 10 representatives in Congress the way you get communists or neo-fascists or muslim brotherhood or hamas in the parliaments of Europe and the middle east. Not to mention what happens when you need those people to form a majority coalition and they demand positions in the government in return.

And how is that worse than the way we have it now?

The way it works now is:
1)Lunatic fringe arises.
2)Lunatic fringe gains traction, because Americans are, by and large, kinda dumb.
3)Lunatic fringe becomes large enough to swing election, so one party or the other incorporates its stances into its platform to keep from losing.

That process is what keeps the parties going for as long as they have.

Such lunatic fringe movements have included:

Abolitionists
Know-Nothings
Labor Unions
Abortionists
Feminists
Deregulators
Racists
Anti-Racists
Peaceniks
Deficit Hawks
Militarists

etc.

The result is Big Tent Parties, which by and large, result in a moderate rightist party and a moderate leftist party with the odd psychopath here and there to spice things up. As a whole, the Big Tent system works out tolerably well. We'll see how long it can last in the unlimited money era (hint, it's not looking so good).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber
Quote:

I think I understand the demographics of the GOP rather well.

The very rich, the undereducated poor, and the fanatically religious middle class.

Apparently you don't. Every study shows that Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats. That a majority of people with college degrees are Republican and that many Republicans fall into the business middle class (as opposed to the government worker segment of the middle class which skews Democrat).

What is true is that Democrats tend to be either more educated (think PHD's, professors, career academics) or less educated (more high school dropouts, highschool degree's only, or 2 year college degrees) than Republicans.

Plus I have always wondered why protestants are classified as "fanatics" because of religion but Jews and Catholics (who tend to vote democrat) aren't seen as an issue despite being some of the most devout believers in the U.S. Perhaps religion isn't really the issue.

edit: Apparently I can't get the quotes to work today. I must be one of the dropouts.:)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yakman wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:


Works great in theory but in reality that is how you get really fringe elements in a government. Its amazing how easy it is to reach that 1% or 5% threshold and do we really want a clan party with 10 representatives in Congress the way you get communists or neo-fascists or muslim brotherhood or hamas in the parliaments of Europe and the middle east. Not to mention what happens when you need those people to form a majority coalition and they demand positions in the government in return.

And how is that worse than the way we have it now?

The way it works now is:
1)Lunatic fringe arises.
2)Lunatic fringe gains traction, because Americans are, by and large, kinda dumb.
3)Lunatic fringe becomes large enough to swing election, so one party or the other incorporates its stances into its platform to keep from losing.

That process is what keeps the parties going for as long as they have.

Such lunatic fringe movements have included:

Abolitionists
Know-Nothings
Labor Unions
Abortionists
Feminists
Deregulators
Racists
Anti-Racists
Peaceniks
Deficit Hawks
Militarists

etc.

The result is Big Tent Parties, which by and large, result in a moderate rightist party and a moderate leftist party with the odd psychopath here and there to spice things up. As a whole, the Big Tent system works out tolerably well. We'll see how long it can last in the unlimited money era (hint, it's not looking so good).

Except we don't have a moderately left and a moderately right party. We have a moderately right party and an extreme far right party.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
Yakman wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:


Works great in theory but in reality that is how you get really fringe elements in a government. Its amazing how easy it is to reach that 1% or 5% threshold and do we really want a clan party with 10 representatives in Congress the way you get communists or neo-fascists or muslim brotherhood or hamas in the parliaments of Europe and the middle east. Not to mention what happens when you need those people to form a majority coalition and they demand positions in the government in return.

And how is that worse than the way we have it now?

The way it works now is:
1)Lunatic fringe arises.
2)Lunatic fringe gains traction, because Americans are, by and large, kinda dumb.
3)Lunatic fringe becomes large enough to swing election, so one party or the other incorporates its stances into its platform to keep from losing.

That process is what keeps the parties going for as long as they have.

Such lunatic fringe movements have included:

Abolitionists
Know-Nothings
Labor Unions
Abortionists
Feminists
Deregulators
Racists
Anti-Racists
Peaceniks
Deficit Hawks
Militarists

etc.

The result is Big Tent Parties, which by and large, result in a moderate rightist party and a moderate leftist party with the odd psychopath here and there to spice things up. As a whole, the Big Tent system works out tolerably well. We'll see how long it can last in the unlimited money era (hint, it's not looking so good).

Except we don't have a moderately left and a moderately right party. We have a moderately right party and an extreme far right party.

according to some measurements, you might be accurate.

however, using the spectrum of mainstream american political sentiment, i am accurate. certainly, the GOP has gone further to the right at the congressional level in the last 12 years - particularly since 2002, and even more terrifyingly since 2010 - but at the state and local level, the vast majority of republicans remain moderately conservative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yakman wrote:

according to some measurements, you might be accurate.

however, using the spectrum of mainstream american political sentiment, i am accurate. certainly, the GOP has gone further to the right at the congressional level in the last 12 years - particularly since 2002, and even more terrifyingly since 2010 - but at the state and local level, the vast majority of republicans remain moderately conservative.

The majority of registered Republicans, voters who tend Republican or the majority of Republican politicians?

Many of the state Republicans make the congressional ones look sane. And they keep getting elected so that says something about the voters. Of course, it varies from state to state and even town to town, but there are some really scary state/local officials out there.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Yakman wrote:

according to some measurements, you might be accurate.

however, using the spectrum of mainstream american political sentiment, i am accurate. certainly, the GOP has gone further to the right at the congressional level in the last 12 years - particularly since 2002, and even more terrifyingly since 2010 - but at the state and local level, the vast majority of republicans remain moderately conservative.

The majority of registered Republicans, voters who tend Republican or the majority of Republican politicians?

Many of the state Republicans make the congressional ones look sane. And they keep getting elected so that says something about the voters. Of course, it varies from state to state and even town to town, but there are some really scary state/local officials out there.

the crazy are represented on the other side of the aisle as well.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yakman wrote:

according to some measurements, you might be accurate.

however, using the spectrum of mainstream american political sentiment, i am accurate. certainly, the GOP has gone further to the right at the congressional level in the last 12 years - particularly since 2002, and even more terrifyingly since 2010 - but at the state and local level, the vast majority of republicans remain moderately conservative.

I think you may be right in blue or swing states where they need to attract the middle. But, in red states, I'm willing to bet that the Republicans are far right at the local levels. Just look at the number of states getting significant traction with creationism.

Star Voter 2013

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Yakman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yakman wrote:

according to some measurements, you might be accurate.

however, using the spectrum of mainstream american political sentiment, i am accurate. certainly, the GOP has gone further to the right at the congressional level in the last 12 years - particularly since 2002, and even more terrifyingly since 2010 - but at the state and local level, the vast majority of republicans remain moderately conservative.

The majority of registered Republicans, voters who tend Republican or the majority of Republican politicians?

Many of the state Republicans make the congressional ones look sane. And they keep getting elected so that says something about the voters. Of course, it varies from state to state and even town to town, but there are some really scary state/local officials out there.

the crazy are represented on the other side of the aisle as well.

In my experience, the crazy on the other side doesn't identify as Democrat, they just find there is no better option.

Edit: and I find that the Democrats don't cater to the crazy because they know they wont go to the other side.

501 to 550 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Third party voting: Throwing your vote away or the only Path to Progress? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.