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

PaizoCon 2014!

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


Off-Topic Discussions

551 to 600 of 635 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
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.:)

Yeah you're going to have to show me this "study". There was a study from a few years ago that showed that Republicans were marginally more informed on political and economic minutiae.

Really, here, just a big old CITATION NEEDED


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I've always been a fan of the guy with the more outrageous claim bringing up the study to support his position.


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.

Ah yes, the false equivalence comes out.

You are correct. There are some people who are a little out there on the Democratic side as well. There are certainly some who are corrupt and some who have their hidden craziness.
However, blatant denial of science or wild conspiracy theories are rarely qualifications for office.


Yakman wrote:
I've always been a fan of the guy with the more outrageous claim bringing up the study to support his position.

OK

Though I don't think "people who believe in magic are dumb" is an outrageous position.

Magic=god and/or the invisible hand.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
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).

Would love to see a study. This conflicts with all my experience ever.

Quote:


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.:)

Because Catholics and Jews as unified groups are not pushing public policy to an extreme, while some protestant sects are trying to force significant changes to laws to accomodate their religeous beliefs.

I've never met a Catholic or Jew who expected those arround them to hold the same beliefs. Every trip I have made to the south has made me uncomfortable with the ammount of preaching.


To be fair, I've met crazy of every persuasion. Including radical Israeli Jews and a Catholic who wanted to outlaw prophylactics. But they were far from being a movement, let alone a dominant force for a political party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Because Catholics and Jews as unified groups are not pushing public policy to an extreme,"

Perhaps you've heard of AIPAC?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
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.

Ah yes, the false equivalence comes out.

You are correct. There are some people who are a little out there on the Democratic side as well. There are certainly some who are corrupt and some who have their hidden craziness.
However, blatant denial of science or wild conspiracy theories are rarely qualifications for office.

There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable. Bill Clinton claiming that "is" can be convoluted into legalese. And of course, Political Scandal is a beast that loves all comers.

As for Creationists or Goldbugs and their favorite candidates, I would argue that the politicians who openly hold these views are striking a deep nerve with their constituencies, and thus, represent them well.

It's hard to be on the fringe with first-past-the-post elections, so the guys who get re-elected despite their sometimes controversial views are perhaps the best avatars of a representative democracy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
To be fair, I've met crazy of every persuasion. Including radical Israeli Jews and a Catholic who wanted to outlaw prophylactics. But they were far from being a movement, let alone a dominant force for a political party.

If the above examples are crazy to you, I would recommend going to a Lyndon LaRouche rally.

There's an eye opener if you ever saw one... which I guess is a pre-requisite for eye openers...


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Because Catholics and Jews as unified groups are not pushing public policy to an extreme,"

Perhaps you've heard of AIPAC?

They push foreign policy. I guess I assumed Caineach was using "public policy" as a synonym to domestic policy, to differentiate from foreign policy. But you are correct, there are huge pro-israel Jewish lobbies in the US.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Because Catholics and Jews as unified groups are not pushing public policy to an extreme,"

Perhaps you've heard of AIPAC?

And the Catholic bishops were pushing a pretty obnoxious abortion/contraception agenda recently.

But I think that's the difference. AIPAC pushes stuff and the Catholic leadership pushes stuff, but they don't really represent the majority of Jews or of Catholics. Jews tend very liberal and most American Catholics are either white "cafeteria" Catholics who don't follow the church's line on "values" issues (read "sex") or Hispanics who have other reasons not support Republicans.

Protestants, or more accurately a subset of fundamentalist evangelicals and other groups do tend to be behind the issues their leaders are pushing.


Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore

It's not the worst law in the world, but it was clearly poorly thought out. Some provisions are great and much needed. Others are another matter altogether.

But if the law's biggest champion and primary sponsor can't explain it... well...

My point was that both sides have their share of nutty moments and batty members. Large organizations are going to encompass these things. It happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, both sides have nutty moments. That's called false equivalence.

How about this guy who says evolution and big bang are lies from the pit of hell? Is that equivalently nutty from saying that we won't know how well provisions in healthcare legislation will work until we try them?

Or This guy who says slavery was a blessing in disguise. That's totally the same as wanting to guard one's language in a deposition. Right?

And everyone is already familiar with the retarded pile of insanity that is Todd Akin.

There's 'nutty' as in flighty or capricious or eccentric. And then there's malicious and/or dangerously uninformed.


Yakman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
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.

Ah yes, the false equivalence comes out.

You are correct. There are some people who are a little out there on the Democratic side as well. There are certainly some who are corrupt and some who have their hidden craziness.
However, blatant denial of science or wild conspiracy theories are rarely qualifications for office.

There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable. Bill Clinton claiming that "is" can be convoluted into legalese. And of course, Political Scandal is a beast that loves all comers.

As for Creationists or Goldbugs and their favorite candidates, I would argue that the politicians who openly hold these views are striking a deep nerve with their constituencies, and thus, represent them well.

It's hard to be on the fringe with first-past-the-post elections, so the guys who get re-elected despite their sometimes controversial views are perhaps the best avatars of a...

Right, so it's not just the representatives but the voters who are crazy. Glad we've cleared that up.


meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore

And if I recall that debate, you couldn't understand it until after it passed because it was being amended until the last minute trying to round up votes.

You couldn't go into all the details until it passed because the details weren't set until it passed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Right, so it's not just the representatives but the voters who are crazy. Glad we've cleared that up.

I could get on board with that. Crazy and/or stupid that is. However, having an electorate that is uninformed and/or delusional does NOT absolve the legislature from being the same.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

"Because Catholics and Jews as unified groups are not pushing public policy to an extreme,"

Perhaps you've heard of AIPAC?

Actually, not until you mentioned them. I'm looking them up, but from what I can tell they seem to have bi-partisan support and are proponents of a mostly foreign policy adjenda. They seem self-serving but not overly radical in their beliefs, based on their wikipedia page. I wouldn't consider what they are pushing an extreme.

Perhaps I should add a sanity qualification as well. Advocating your beliefs is different if they have basis in rational thought. Strong support for friends/family in a foreign nation to protect them has a strong basis in rational thought. Creationism not so much.

As I write this, I notice that Catholic Priests are getting pushed forward too. Yes, Catholic leadership pushed forward a very conservative, blindly right policy. Many Catholics spoke out against that policy, and the church did not push most of those members away. Some likely left for more moderate protestant churches. Many Protestant preachers advocate blind adherance to what they preach. Catholics, and many other Protestants, do not. They have an official stance and members are free to disagree.


thejeff wrote:


And if I recall that debate, you couldn't understand it until after it passed because it was being amended until the last minute trying to round up votes.
You couldn't go into all the details until it passed because the details weren't set until it passed.

Exactly. cRaZy!

So, it seems that Democrats say crazy things when you take them out of context. Republicans say crazy things, and when you call them on it they double down and call you crazy.

*scratches chin*

(also, I'd like to take this time to disavow anything every said ever by Al Sharpton)


Caineach wrote:
As I write this, I notice that Catholic Priests are getting pushed forward too. Yes, Catholic leadership pushed forward a very conservative, blindly right policy. Many Catholics spoke out against that policy, and the church did not push most of those members away. Some likely left for more moderate protestant churches. Many Protestant preachers advocate blind adherance to what they preach. Catholics, and many other Protestants, do not. They have an official stance and members are free to disagree.

Yeah. I really find the current rifts in the Catholic regime fascinating. Hopefully they'll bring real reform, rather than just more people splintering off. Like, boot the pope and choose one that wasn't the former head of the inquisition and a nazi youth. It'd be a start.


meatrace wrote:
Caineach wrote:
As I write this, I notice that Catholic Priests are getting pushed forward too. Yes, Catholic leadership pushed forward a very conservative, blindly right policy. Many Catholics spoke out against that policy, and the church did not push most of those members away. Some likely left for more moderate protestant churches. Many Protestant preachers advocate blind adherance to what they preach. Catholics, and many other Protestants, do not. They have an official stance and members are free to disagree.
Yeah. I really find the current rifts in the Catholic regime fascinating. Hopefully they'll bring real reform, rather than just more people splintering off. Like, boot the pope and choose one that wasn't the former head of the inquisition and a nazi youth. It'd be a start.

The current feud between the hierarchy and the nuns is especially interesting. I'm betting on the nuns all the way, but I still have troubling seeing how they'll be able to force much change in the actual Church structure.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
meatrace wrote:

Sure, both sides have nutty moments. That's called false equivalence.

How about this guy who says evolution and big bang are lies from the pit of hell? Is that equivalently nutty from saying that we won't know how well provisions in healthcare legislation will work until we try them?

Or This guy who says slavery was a blessing in disguise. That's totally the same as wanting to guard one's language in a deposition. Right?

And everyone is already familiar with the retarded pile of insanity that is Todd Akin.

There's 'nutty' as in flighty or capricious or eccentric. And then there's malicious and/or dangerously uninformed.

You call Todd Akin insane. His supporters think he's great. He represents them. He may win the election.

Ultimately, that's what democratic politics is supposed to be about - getting votes.

As far as crazy goes, yes, at the present time, the GOP is full of the crazy, from Michelle Bachman saying we don't have to pay the debt to whoever the Daily Show is deciding to skewer tonight. It's a shame that they've taken over the party, but that's how politics works.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore

And if I recall that debate, you couldn't understand it until after it passed because it was being amended until the last minute trying to round up votes.

You couldn't go into all the details until it passed because the details weren't set until it passed.

Not the case.

The amendments were all the little bells and whistles and gimmes to law makers so they would vote for it. The core of the bill wasn't changing.


Yakman wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Sure, both sides have nutty moments. That's called false equivalence.

How about this guy who says evolution and big bang are lies from the pit of hell? Is that equivalently nutty from saying that we won't know how well provisions in healthcare legislation will work until we try them?

Or This guy who says slavery was a blessing in disguise. That's totally the same as wanting to guard one's language in a deposition. Right?

And everyone is already familiar with the retarded pile of insanity that is Todd Akin.

There's 'nutty' as in flighty or capricious or eccentric. And then there's malicious and/or dangerously uninformed.

You call Todd Akin insane. His supporters think he's great. He represents them. He may win the election.

Ultimately, that's what democratic politics is supposed to be about - getting votes.

As far as crazy goes, yes, at the present time, the GOP is full of the crazy, from Michelle Bachman saying we don't have to pay the debt to whoever the Daily Show is deciding to skewer tonight. It's a shame that they've taken over the party, but that's how politics works.

Right. So we agree. The crazies have taken over the Republican party to a degree completely unmatched on the Democratic side.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd agree with that.

The problem with the Democrats isn't that they're insane, it's that they're blood-drenched stooges of the plutocracy.


Yakman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore

And if I recall that debate, you couldn't understand it until after it passed because it was being amended until the last minute trying to round up votes.

You couldn't go into all the details until it passed because the details weren't set until it passed.

Not the case.

The amendments were all the little bells and whistles and gimmes to law makers so they would vote for it. The core of the bill wasn't changing.

Do you have a source for that quote? I know it's quoted all over the web, but I was looking for date and context to remind myself what was going on then and all I could find was right-wingers bashing her with it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Yakman wrote:
meatrace wrote:

Sure, both sides have nutty moments. That's called false equivalence.

How about this guy who says evolution and big bang are lies from the pit of hell? Is that equivalently nutty from saying that we won't know how well provisions in healthcare legislation will work until we try them?

Or This guy who says slavery was a blessing in disguise. That's totally the same as wanting to guard one's language in a deposition. Right?

And everyone is already familiar with the retarded pile of insanity that is Todd Akin.

There's 'nutty' as in flighty or capricious or eccentric. And then there's malicious and/or dangerously uninformed.

You call Todd Akin insane. His supporters think he's great. He represents them. He may win the election.

Ultimately, that's what democratic politics is supposed to be about - getting votes.

As far as crazy goes, yes, at the present time, the GOP is full of the crazy, from Michelle Bachman saying we don't have to pay the debt to whoever the Daily Show is deciding to skewer tonight. It's a shame that they've taken over the party, but that's how politics works.

Right. So we agree. The crazies have taken over the Republican party to a degree completely unmatched on the Democratic side.

Yes.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Yakman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Nancy Pelosi said that about the Patriot act...oh...wait...you mean the PPACA.

Oh you're one of THOSE guys.

/ignore

And if I recall that debate, you couldn't understand it until after it passed because it was being amended until the last minute trying to round up votes.

You couldn't go into all the details until it passed because the details weren't set until it passed.

Not the case.

The amendments were all the little bells and whistles and gimmes to law makers so they would vote for it. The core of the bill wasn't changing.

Do you have a source for that quote? I know it's quoted all over the web, but I was looking for date and context to remind myself what was going on then and all I could find was right-wingers bashing her with it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-i nfamous-health-care-remark/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html

The article clarifies some things. But not why it was so important to pass a piece of legislation that apparently was unknown in its contents.


Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
Apparently you don't. Every study shows that Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats.

Yeah...I'm just gonna leave this here.

Shadow Lodge

Yakman wrote:


I wouldn't say it is a "small segment" either. If it were, why would Romney have stupidly made the "47%" comment

Because that's the 47% that takes a "tax break" by virtue of being too poor to pay federal income tax. The same people who have a problem with that have no problem with taking a 15% tax break on their capital gains taxes.

Quote:
- or why would people be so angry about Obama's "you didn't build it" statement?

Because its been replayed mercilessly and blatantly out of context so that "that" appears to be their businesses as opposed to the roads, highways, and dams that were built by the government and make many businesses possible.

Quote:
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.

Almost no one except Ron Paul is arguing for a small federal government. Romneys idea of a small federal government includes a huge military... that's still government.

People only use the states rights argument when the states want what they want.


meatrace wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Apparently you don't. Every study shows that Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats.
Yeah...I'm just gonna leave this here.
Heinous misquoting! I totally didn't say that, bro.

Whoops! All better.

Andoran

thejeff wrote:
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.

Opinion of Ayn Rand is one of those tests that rarely fails to let you know you are dealing with someone who is delusional.

And given that someone like that is one of the two Vice Presidential candidates, my choice is clear.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:


And given that someone like that is one of the two Vice Presidential candidates, my choice is clear.

Sending Romney a hearty high fiber, low cholesterol breakfast and a health club membership?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Pyrrhic Victory wrote:
Apparently you don't. Every study shows that Republicans tend to be better educated than Democrats.
Yeah...I'm just gonna leave this here.

Lots of interesting data there. Thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do people think there is any real philosophy or beliefs held by the parties that actually transfer into law?

I've been watching this stuff since I was a kid growing up in the Reagan era, and the idea that any of these politicians follow something other then money is laughable. They talk a good game, and throw out all the right buzz words in public, but when it comes to passing laws, it's all about paying back the wealthy people who bought them their office.

Do you think all these laws (especially tax codes) are hundreds of pages because they are just so detailed, or so that they can obfuscate how much shady stuff is in there? Ever notice how how many issues everyone in the public agrees on, but nothing ever happens?

I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That's why Nixon and Bush II both passed pioneering environmental legislation? Or why Bush II and Obama both axed ridiculous military expenditures?

Politicians aren't perfect. But sometimes they can surprise you.

You should have more faith in your public servants.


Fergie wrote:

Do people think there is any real philosophy or beliefs held by the parties that actually transfer into law?

I've been watching this stuff since I was a kid growing up in the Reagan era, and the idea that any of these politicians follow something other then money is laughable. They talk a good game, and throw out all the right buzz words in public, but when it comes to passing laws, it's all about paying back the wealthy people who bought them their office.

Do you think all these laws (especially tax codes) are hundreds of pages because they are just so detailed, or so that they can obfuscate how much shady stuff is in there? Ever notice how how many issues everyone in the public agrees on, but nothing ever happens?

I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.

Money isn't everything. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find a politician who voted against their district on issues important to the district. The problem is that most districts don't care about most issues, or only about specific things of issues. For example, a congressman never votes to close a base in their district, because those are jobs in their district and voting to put people in your district out of work is a bad idea politically. Which is why the stealth bomber has a part made in every state.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Do people think there is any real philosophy or beliefs held by the parties that actually transfer into law?

I've been watching this stuff since I was a kid growing up in the Reagan era, and the idea that any of these politicians follow something other then money is laughable. They talk a good game, and throw out all the right buzz words in public, but when it comes to passing laws, it's all about paying back the wealthy people who bought them their office.

Do you think all these laws (especially tax codes) are hundreds of pages because they are just so detailed, or so that they can obfuscate how much shady stuff is in there? Ever notice how how many issues everyone in the public agrees on, but nothing ever happens?

I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.

Money isn't everything. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find a politician who voted against their district on issues important to the district. The problem is that most districts don't care about most issues, or only about specific things of issues. For example, a congressman never votes to close a base in their district, because those are jobs in their district and voting to put people in your district out of work is a bad idea politically. Which is why the stealth bomber has a part made in every state.

I don't think that's the stealth bomber, i think it's the B1 Bomber, which had no strategic or tactical purpose other than to shovel money to defense contractors and give generals more stars and cushy jobs when they retired.


Fergie wrote:
Do people think there is any real philosophy or beliefs held by the parties that actually transfer into law?

Yes. As we've discussed countless times in this thread, the belief that the Republican and Democratic parties are interchangeable is a (sadly popular) fiction.

Quote:
I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties,

That's pretty much exactly what you're saying.

Quote:
but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.

You are mistaking political compromise for political homogeneity. If the Democratic party had free reign to implement any legislation they wanted, you would see a very different United States than if the Republican party was able to do the same.

But, above all, the solution still has nothing to do with politicians and everything to do with voters. You can't start at the top. Everyone needs to be orders of magnitude better educated on the issues and on political action than they currently are.


Yakman wrote:
That's why Nixon and Bush II both passed pioneering environmental legislation?

I wouldn't exactly call the environmental legislation passed by Bush II "pioneering", and he actively worked against enforcing existing environmental regulations.


meatrace wrote:
Yakman wrote:
That's why Nixon and Bush II both passed pioneering environmental legislation?
I wouldn't exactly call the environmental legislation passed by Bush II "pioneering", and he actively worked against enforcing existing environmental regulations.

But it was called the Clear Initiative; It had "clear skies" right there in the name! And before you bring up Christine Todd Whitman, she said at the time that she resigned as EPA administrator to spend more time with her family; anything else she said after is just flip-flopping! :P


Yakman wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Do people think there is any real philosophy or beliefs held by the parties that actually transfer into law?

I've been watching this stuff since I was a kid growing up in the Reagan era, and the idea that any of these politicians follow something other then money is laughable. They talk a good game, and throw out all the right buzz words in public, but when it comes to passing laws, it's all about paying back the wealthy people who bought them their office.

Do you think all these laws (especially tax codes) are hundreds of pages because they are just so detailed, or so that they can obfuscate how much shady stuff is in there? Ever notice how how many issues everyone in the public agrees on, but nothing ever happens?

I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.

Money isn't everything. In fact you'll be hard pressed to find a politician who voted against their district on issues important to the district. The problem is that most districts don't care about most issues, or only about specific things of issues. For example, a congressman never votes to close a base in their district, because those are jobs in their district and voting to put people in your district out of work is a bad idea politically. Which is why the stealth bomber has a part made in every state.
I don't think that's the stealth bomber, i think it's the B1 Bomber, which had no strategic or tactical purpose other than to shovel money to defense contractors and give generals more stars and cushy jobs when they retired.

You got part of the overall point though. Taking it down to the individual politician though, we see that campaign contributions aren't always the primary factor in swaying their vote. A politician might be opposed to military spending, but when it directly affects their district, the one that votes against jobs in their district is the one that doesn't come back next term.

Campaign contributions affect things that the district doesn't care heavily about.

In a heavily religious, rural district in Mississippi, it wouldn't matter how much money a lobbyist had, he's still not getting a representative to vote pro-choice.


Scott Betts wrote:

You are mistaking political compromise for political homogeneity. If the Democratic party had free reign to implement any legislation they wanted, you would see a very different United States than if the Republican party was able to do the same.

Oh really?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

You are mistaking political compromise for political homogeneity. If the Democratic party had free reign to implement any legislation they wanted, you would see a very different United States than if the Republican party was able to do the same.

Oh really?

Yes, really. I'm curious; what, exactly, do you think that link shows?


I think it shows Max Baucus, Democratic Party shill (am I using the word correctly?) for the insurance industry, nixing single-payer and pumping out Romneycare writ large.

Shadow Lodge

Fergie wrote:


I'm not saying there is no difference between the parties, but when the chips are down, it doesn't matter which party they are from, they are going to vote for wars, "free trade", invaliding your rights, and any other policy that makes the rich richer, and keeps the war machine going. There is no "liberal", "conservative", or any thing other then the Graft Party.

Yes, but with a democrat the wars are "lets bomb em a bit with a drone", and they appoint judges who are more likely to xnay the executives ability to trample on your rights.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think it shows Max Baucus, Democratic Party shill (am I using the word correctly?) for the insurance industry, nixing single-payer and pumping out Romneycare writ large.

And you feel that Max Baucus is an appropriate stand-in for the Democratic party at-large, and that the Republican party supports the same approach to health care?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Yakman wrote:
There's more than a fair share of open craziness on the democratic side - Nancy Pelosi claiming that we can only understand the largest expansion of government power since the Income Tax after the bill has been passed is notable.

Not this talking point again. I've covered this nonsense in detail.

tl;dr version: The quote is "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy," and it's from a speech to the National Association of Counties, not Congress. The "you" here is a group of concerned taxpayers, not members of Congress, who at this point have had the bill in their hands for a while. The point of the quote, in context, is that because of all of the proposed amendments and the Congressional reconciliation process, taxpayers are unlikely to see the final version of the bill until it is actually passed and its finalized contents can help to dispel the misinformation about the bill (e.g. false suggestions that death panels, a public option, imprisoning the uninsured, etc. are part of the bill).


Scott Betts wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think it shows Max Baucus, Democratic Party shill (am I using the word correctly?) for the insurance industry, nixing single-payer and pumping out Romneycare writ large.
And you feel that Max Baucus is an appropriate stand-in for the Democratic party at-large, and that the Republican party supports the same approach to health care?

The insurance mandate has been a republican proposal since either the 70's or 80's.

Max Baucus is an example of how the democratic party shoots itself in the foot.


Irontruth wrote:
The insurance mandate has been a republican proposal since either the 70's or 80's.

Is it your opinion that the Republican party of today is the same party, in terms of ideology, as the Republican party of the 70's?

551 to 600 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.