|
I find the double standard that is in place with regards to generalizations and stereotyping disgusting, personally. Take everything you just said and apply it to the practice of racial profiling, and watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth erupt from the left.
"No really, it's okay to make sweeping statements about a large, ideologically diverse group of people, because my comments are coming from a liberal point of view and are aimed at a bunch of white folks."
Am i stereotyping teabaggers? yes. Is that bad? also yes. Should the tea party movement try distance themselves from the tea baggers that are giving the movement a bad name? definitely.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Am i stereotyping teabaggers? yes. Is that bad? also yes. Should the tea party movement try distance themselves from the tea baggers that are giving the movement a bad name? definitely.I find the double standard that is in place with regards to generalizations and stereotyping disgusting, personally. Take everything you just said and apply it to the practice of racial profiling, and watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth erupt from the left.
"No really, it's okay to make sweeping statements about a large, ideologically diverse group of people, because my comments are coming from a liberal point of view and are aimed at a bunch of white folks."
I'd point out that they do. Ask Joseph Farrah.
However, I'd also point out the most (in)famous Obama = Hitler people are Democrats.
I also commend your arguing that those who had Bush = Hitler posters, and were hanging Sarah Palin in effigy should distance themselves from the Democrats. Or maybe they should just stop having 9/11 truthers and communists in their presidential administrations, and stop having fund raising in the houses of admitted terrorists.
I also find your continued use of a homosexual sexual activity as an insulting term amusing. It's good to see someone so open and tollerant of alternate sexual practices, well unless you can use them to belittle others.
I just have to take a moment here in the conversation to point out that disliking or disagreeing with the President, or equating him with Hitler, doesn't make one a racist.
I said nothing about disagreeing with the president. That's A-OK.
Equating him with Hitler involves ignorance, plain and simple. Not only is it insulting hyperbole, but it's factually inaccurate: For one, Hitler *lost* the presidential election, but then capitalized on populist rage to seize power. You know, because the government was out of control. Sound familiar?
|
|
I also find your continued use of a homosexual sexual activity as an insulting term amusing. It's good to see someone so open and tollerant of alternate sexual practices, well unless you can use them to belittle others.
Huh? Teabagging isn't a "homosexual sexual activity." Homoerotic? yes. But it is the staple of frat party pranks everywhere...and not necessarily even a sexual activity.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I also find your continued use of a homosexual sexual activity as an insulting term amusing. It's good to see someone so open and tollerant of alternate sexual practices, well unless you can use them to belittle others.Huh? Teabagging isn't a "homosexual sexual activity." Homoerotic? yes. But it is the staple of frat party pranks everywhere...and not necessarily even a sexual activity.
It was explained to me as such on GP, and I've never been in a frat.
So I'll redact the sexual practice and just ask if you're trying to be inflamitory on purpose. It doesn't help your arguement.
|
|
I also find your continued use of a homosexual sexual activity as an insulting term amusing. It's good to see someone so open and tollerant of alternate sexual practices, well unless you can use them to belittle others.Huh? Teabagging isn't a "homosexual sexual activity." Homoerotic? yes. But it is the staple of frat party pranks everywhere...and not necessarily even a sexual activity.It was explained to me as such on GP, and I've never been in a frat.
So I'll redact the sexual practice and just ask if you're trying to be inflamitory on purpose. It doesn't help your arguement.
Maybe a little...I am just extremely annoyed with the tea party protestors (better ? :P). What they're doing now has nothing to do with the original boston tea party other than the fact that taxes are involved. As i recall (and it's been many moons since HS history) the boston tea party was in protest of taxation without representation. That, however, is not what is happening nowadays. They are being represented, they just don't like that things aren't going their way and people like them aren't in power. They are basically sore losers and need to grow up IMO.
Maybe a little...I am just extremely annoyed with the tea party protestors (better ? :P). What they're doing now has nothing to do with the original boston tea party other than the fact that taxes are involved. As i recall (and it's been many moons since HS history) the boston tea party was in protest of taxation without representation. That, however, is not what is happening nowadays. They are being represented, they just don't like that things aren't going their way and people like them aren't in power. They are basically sore losers and need to grow up IMO.
Correct; they have the same representation as everyone else.
I vehemently disagreed with a great many things Bush Jr. did, and didn't hesitate to say so, but I wasn't burning the man in effigy. Because the system doesn't produce the results you personally want isn't justification to overthrow the system.
As i recall (and it's been many moons since HS history) the boston tea party was in protest of taxation without representation. That, however, is not what is happening nowadays. They are being represented, they just don't like that things aren't going their way and people like them aren't in power.
This was something that has been swimming around in my head for the last day or so as well. The original Boston Tea Party was one of the incidents that led the American Revolution, was it not?
Is this really the sort of allegory that Americans want to make? That they have a "revolution" in mind? I always thought that the strengths of a democratic society was that revolutions were no longer needed. The mere fact that in the span of the next 4 years, American voters can pretty much completely change the names and parties of the people in power should be all they need.
Revolutions in a democracy strike me as a scary thing, not a good one.
Greg
I also find your continued use of a homosexual sexual activity as an insulting term amusing. It's good to see someone so open and tollerant of alternate sexual practices, well unless you can use them to belittle others.Huh? Teabagging isn't a "homosexual sexual activity." Homoerotic? yes. But it is the staple of frat party pranks everywhere...and not necessarily even a sexual activity.
Correct. It's not sexual, really, but mostly just juvenile and insulting. At least, that's my understanding; it may have a sexual meaning of which I am unaware.
|
|
Maybe a little...I am just extremely annoyed with the tea party protestors (better ? :P). What they're doing now has nothing to do with the original boston tea party other than the fact that taxes are involved. As i recall (and it's been many moons since HS history) the boston tea party was in protest of taxation without representation. That, however, is not what is happening nowadays. They are being represented, they just don't like that things aren't going their way and people like them aren't in power. They are basically sore losers and need to grow up IMO.Correct; they have the same representation as everyone else.
I vehemently disagreed with a great many things Bush Jr. did, and didn't hesitate to say so, but I wasn't burning the man in effigy. Because the system doesn't produce the results you personally want isn't justification to overthrow the system.
I despised dubya, but being a member of the military under his reign, i had to follow him and "respect" him as my CiC yet under Obama you have COMMANDERS and OFFICERS who are pulling this truther crap to get out of deployment. During dubya's time this was (mostly) limited to lower enlisted.
|
You know, every time I hear or read somene saying things like Teabagger, Nazi, Dubya, Communist, Odumba, etc. I think of this quote. "Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it." - Charles R. Anderson
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
This was something that has been swimming around in my head for the last day or so as well. The original Boston Tea Party was one of the incidents that led the American Revolution, was it not?
Is this really the sort of allegory that Americans want to make? That they have a "revolution" in mind? I always thought that the strengths of a democratic society was that revolutions were no longer needed. The mere fact that in the span of the next 4 years, American voters can pretty much completely change the names and parties of the people in power should be all they need.
Revolutions in a democracy strike me as a scary thing, not a good one.
Greg
Depends on how you mean 'lead to' It was an (albiet destructive) protest of the stamp act and other taxes. The issue being that the colonials disagreed with the taxes imposed as they had no voice in parliment.
The majority of the Tea Party goers I've spoke with feel that their interests aren't being listened to by their elected represenatives. They're using their right of assembly to redress grievances to the government. Many states are reflecting their constituants' feelings by asserting their 10th ammendment rights of reserved powers. Most feel disillusioned by both parties. No sane person is arguing for armed revolt and killing people. The latest front is land as much as taxes or rights. Kelo shocked/worried a lot of people.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I despised dubya, but being a member of the military under his reign, i had to follow him and "respect" him as my CiC yet under Obama you have COMMANDERS and OFFICERS who are pulling this truther crap to get out of deployment. During dubya's time this was (mostly) limited to lower enlisted.
Truthers are 9/11 nuts. Birthers are citizenship nuts. Try to keep your loony conspiracy theories straight :P
The first Birthers came from the left side of the spectrum, then it was picked up by the right. I think it's a technicality at best and a moot point. He's the President, move on. I also think it was handled poorly by the parties involved (it's become a broad brush to paint anyone who disagrees with this administration, and it could have been dispelled early on by more information).
I also try to avoid using all the derogatory nicknames for President Obama. I think he's a good campaigner, but a poor leader. I think he's thin skinned, elitist, and prone to alienate allies for temporary points. His latest political frak up on the Falklands is yet another example, he is to Foreign policy what I am to tact. But I don't want to get into the 'Nobama' 'President 0' 'Chairman 0bama' etc. it's petty and childish and takes away from the meat of an arguement.
I may not do it all the time, but as a Lutheran Heritic I know "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You know, every time I hear or read somene saying things like Teabagger, Nazi, Dubya, Communist, Odumba, etc. I think of this quote. "Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it." - Charles R. Anderson
Dubya always makes me laugh, since it was a friendly nickname for President Bush, to seperate him from his father. It's 'Double-U' with the Texas twang.
It would be like insulting me by calling me 'Matt.'
The majority of the Tea Party goers I've spoke with feel that their interests aren't being listened to by their elected represenatives. They're using their right of assembly to redress grievances to the government.
Which is absolutely reasonable and fair.
Many states are reflecting their constituants' feelings by asserting their 10th ammendment rights of reserved powers.
Ok, sounds good.
Most feel disillusioned by both parties.
This pretty much is what I was asking about. How about this: If the current system is so utterly and completely broken, as seems to be the consensus, why is there no organized effort to bring more federal/state/local parties into the election mix?
I've heard American pundits smirk at the Canadian/European political process, arguing that a multiple party system only leads to chaos. (Everybody seems to point to Italy, it seems, but again, I'm no poly sci expert.) But if the current 2-party system is broken, why is there no concerted, grass-roots effort to change it? (And introducing a new party is by no means revolutionary. Seems to happen every 10 years or so up here at some level of government.)
No sane person is arguing for armed revolt and killing people.
While I hope you are right, recent incidents such as the plane attack on the IRS building and the shooting near the pentagon strike me as somewhat troubling. (Note: I do not claim that either of these incidents are releated to tea bag rallies. But the confluence of events makes one pause.)
The latest front is land as much as taxes or rights. Kelo shocked/worried a lot of people.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with "Kelo". (Google only provided radio station links.)
Greg
<SNIP>
The majority of the Tea Party goers I've spoke with feel that their interests aren't being listened to by their elected represenatives.
<SNIP>
I think that's the majority of U.S. citizens, Matt. I know I often feel that way. As for the "tea party," there is no problem with them assembling and making themselves heard. Among the problems are that:
1. There are several loud individuals implying violence may be justified. Since there is no "tea party" leadership, these people are free to claim whatever allegiance they wish, and in so doing speak for anyone who self-identifies as a tea party member.
2. Large, leaderless groups and unchanneled anger are a bad combination; history is littered with examples of why this is so. All it takes is one charismatic individual to seize control and start down a very dangerous path. And while the folks you know probably won't go along, there is a mountain of research that shows that many (most) people *would.* I am opposed to authoritarianism in any form, and the tea party seems to have more than it's fair share of authoritarians.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The Pentagon shooting and the IRS crash were both despondant and in general, mentally ill individuals. I'd not assign any political affiliation to either, though some sites put the Pentagon shooter far from the right.
Part of the problem with our system is that the two parties are too entrenched, and a third party few have patience to promote to national prominance. We do have multiple parties (Libertarian and Communist come to mind) but they're drowned out. Part of the balance issue is Congress. If you took the original numbers in the house and projected them to current times, the captial would look like the Republic Senate. That would likely have more parties, but it would not be very functional. (some might look at that as a perk)
Another part is, for all their ideological differences, the two parties do 'rig the system.'
Kelo v. City of New London was a court decision that resulted in the court ruling the city could take a person's land and give it to another interest in the name of 'economic development' (in dark humour, the land that was taken is an abandoned lot. So much for economic development). Take from that what you will. Me, I'm not happy that I could spend 20 years in my home, keep the grass mowed and when I refuse to sell it to 'Bill's condo emporium' the city/state can declair my home condemned, kick me off for a pittance, then give it to Bill to build his condos, because they feel they can get more taxes from it.
The Pentagon shooting and the IRS crash were both despondant and in general, mentally ill individuals. I'd not assign any political affiliation to either, though some sites put the Pentagon shooter far from the right.
Fair enough. But does this not concern you? In the last 30 years, I can think of only a few home-grown violent attacks on the American government. Timothy McVeigh and John Hinkley Jr come to mind. (Going further back, there is Squeaky Fromme, and then the Kennedy assasinations in the 60s). Two events like this in the span of a few months is troubling to me.
Maybe I worry too much. Maybe I should be more blase about this, but this is a tad scary to me.
Part of the problem with our system is that the two parties are too entrenched, and a third party few have patience to promote to national prominance.
I would argue that if this were true, that the strangle-hold of the Dems and Repubs is so strong, why even bother picketting? The US has, arguably, the strongest and free-est democracy on the face of the planet. And yet it is impossible for a 3rd party to get any sort of toe-hold on the national scene?
If that's the case, then something truly is broken. And broken badly.
We do have multiple parties (Libertarian and Communist come to mind) but they're drowned out.
Well, unless you can get them into a Presidential debate, then I'd argue that they aren't much to talk about. Ross Perot at least got in the door. But what happened?
In Canada, a leadership debate (equivalent to a Presidential debate) has representatives from 5 parties: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democratic Party, Bloq Quebecois and the Green Party. And one of those parties doesn't even field candidates outside of Quebec (no points for guessing which one that is :)
Kelo v. City of New London was a court decision that resulted in the court ruling the city could take a person's land and give it to another interest in the name of 'economic development' (in dark humour, the land that was taken is an abandoned lot. So much for economic development). Take from that what you will. Me, I'm not happy that I could spend 20 years in my home, keep the grass mowed and when I refuse to sell it to 'Bill's condo emporium' the city/state can declair my home condemned, kick me off for a pittance, then give it to Bill to build his condos, because they feel they can get more taxes from it.
Me neither. But then "emminent domain" is a very old concept, is it not? According to Wikipedia
"The power of governments to take private real or personal property has always existed in the United States, being an inherent attribute of sovereignty."
So, while troubling, this isn't anything new.
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
eminent domain
As someone whose family land got split down the middle when they built I-95, let me be the one to tell you that eminent domain hurts. Don't get me wrong, I like I-95, but I know what it costs you if you're in the way of "economic development."
two-party politics
I think it speaks volumes about the current American political system that when the U.S. engages in nation-building, we set up a unicameral parliamentary form of government instead of a system like we ourselves have. A parliamentary system allows for more participation by multiple smaller parties than does our current system, which relies on large, consolidated voting blocs to get anything done (and we're STILL gridlocked with both houses of Congress and the White House all Democrat).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Charlie, Greg,
I understand the pain of eminent domain. The difference between I-95 and Kelo, to me is that the government took I-95 for infrastructure a 'correct' (if annoying) part of Takings. They took Kelo to specifically give it to another private entity.
And I don't know the best way to open up the two party system.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I despised dubya, but being a member of the military under his reign, i had to follow him and "respect" him as my CiC yet under Obama you have COMMANDERS and OFFICERS who are pulling this truther crap to get out of deployment. During dubya's time this was (mostly) limited to lower enlisted.
I've read about a couple of cases of what you describe above. Military commissioned officers are subject to stronger restrictions about political speech. Article 88 of the UCMJ prohibits us from speaking contemptuously about the President, among others. Those guys that are using the birther stuff to get out of doing their duty should be court-martialed.
Enlisted aren't subject to Article 88, but since the President is Commander-in-Chief, they could still be disciplined for disrespect to a superior officer (likewise for the Secretary of their respective service and the SecDef). They can badmouth Congress or state governors or whatever else all they want, though, as long as it isn't the chain of command.
As I've said elsewhere, the Patriot Act, hystaria aside, didn't raise that high on my radar, because I'd put faith in the sunset provisions, and that it would be used correctly. I've not seen any abuse of it reported, just speculated on. (as opposed to RICO, which was abused in the 90's)Thank you. The 2005 article doesn't have much useful information.
The first case was a mistake that was caught. (fortunately, the Matthew Morris' out there are not terrorists) To call the Madrid bombing a 'criminal action' defies logic. Indeed, that he had due process and was released is a sign that the legal system worked.
The second comes out and admits that it has nothing to do with the patriot act. "...the judge's ruling affected an earlier communications privacy law that was simply expanded by the Patriot Act."
The third, well I find it kind of silly to not read links you post, but again, he was found not guilty.
The last two are examples of criminal stupidity. Both committed crimes and acts of terror. I don't see much of a difference between a lone wolf terrorist and Bill Ayers to be honest.
The 2009 article is much more disturbing. The Airlines should be able to boot off anyone they deem a threat or disturbance (and how could you not know that assaulting a flight attendent in the first one isn't a crime, even if not a terrorist act?) but a lot of the cases in the article are questionable at best, 'he said/she said' at worst.
Sorry that's not my best citation work. I hit a Trojan page when I clicked on an ACLU link in my search, so I kind of logged off in the middle of the post to run my cleaners. I'm still having some problems.
I'll try to dig up some more stuff tonight. In the mean time I would point you in the direction of operation G-string.
And I don't know the best way to open up the two party system.
As I said to Bitter Thorn on the Republican thread, I don't buy it. You've brought way too much to the table in this thread and in others to throw up your hands(or perhaps shrug your shoulders) at this important topic. I don't care if it sounds crazy far right wing or rational far left wing ( ;-) ), give us SOMETHING on this, even if it's just a theory or two.
Also, thank you for putting up information on your experiences with the Tea Bag Party/Tea Movement/Teabaggers/whathaveyou. It touches a little bit on experiences with racism I've encountered, and some other minorities have encountered too. It can be hard to not seem racist(or at least outlandish) when you have strongly-worded feelings that affect someone who happens to be a different race from you and you live in an area that is 99% homogenous when it comes to race. If anything, I would say this is the bitterest pill to swallow with respect to the role racism plays in United States history. I'd say the second bitterest is the fact that racism, unfortunately, does not equal stupidity, radical fringe, or that those who hold to its views are somehow lacking in numbers and intellect.
Also, we really need a little flag next to our names denoting what country we come from. It's starting to get confusing. :-D
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And I don't know the best way to open up the two party system.As I said to Bitter Thorn on the Republican thread, I don't buy it. You've brought way too much to the table in this thread and in others to throw up your hands(or perhaps shrug your shoulders) at this important topic. I don't care if it sounds crazy far right wing or rational far left wing ( ;-) ), give us SOMETHING on this.
C4?
Seriously, I think it's hard to do in a macro-sense. Ideally it wouldn't be a TEA Party, a Workers of the World rally, or any other national movement. It would start locally, An independent mayor, or city councilman here, an independant county comissioner there. Someone who makes his name known at a local level, then at a state legislative level, then a federal congressional level (or governorship, etc) but the higher up you go, the more you have to have multiple small dogs to have any influence. I mean look at Bernie Sanders. He's technically an independent, a self admitted socialist party member, but he's indistingushable from most of the democrats he caucusses with.
The other option is to dismantle the campaign finance laws as they stand. Matching funds, et al. Yes it could result in "Senator Bob, brought to you by the nice folks at Microsoft who funneled a heck of a lot of money into the campaign." But at the same time, if the laws forced true transparency that would mitigate it. Sen Bob may sill have his party as (MS) Washington, but at least people would know it.
Third option, elect me as dictator. Problem solved.
Edit: I forgot to add, we need politicos that reach each other across party lines to form temporary alliances. To use me as an example (since I know me so well) I'm for repealing DADT and changing the UCMJ. I'm also for the construction of a seperate form of government recognition of same sex partnerships, and not changing marriage. (look on my facebook page, or search gaypatriot for 'fred'). I'd work with Joe Lieberman to overturn DADT, but make it clear that while i'm for removing DADT, and creating a construct of fred, I'm going to fight tooth and nail to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Of course I'd also have to make this clear to my constituants, which such bluntness insures I never get elected in the first place in modern society.
Seriously, I think it's hard to do in a macro-sense.
My first suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the government, its the major networks. Get them (via picketting, petition, boycott, whatever) to insist that no Presidential debate will be aired unless opened up to other parties. How do you think the DNC and RNC would feel if they didn't think they could get their candidate's message out in that forum? Yeah, you're gonna get the nut-jobs in there, but the nation will see them for who they are and they will been gone after the first 2 or 3 cycles. After that, you'll have serious candidates, and maybe a chance for some real change.
Wih a non-Democrat/non-Republican in the white house, who has no allegiances to Congress or Senate, may actually help you.
Just a thought.
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Seriously, I think it's hard to do in a macro-sense.My first suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the government, its the major networks. Get them (via picketting, petition, boycott, whatever) to insist that no Presidential debate will be aired unless opened up to other parties. How do you think the DNC and RNC would feel if they didn't think they could get their candidate's message out in that forum? Yeah, you're gonna get the nut-jobs in there, but the nation will see them for who they are and they will been gone after the first 2 or 3 cycles. After that, you'll have serious candidates, and maybe a chance for some real change.
Wih a non-Democrat/non-Republican in the white house, who has no allegiances to Congress or Senate, may actually help you.
Just a thought.
Greg
Nice idea, but just an independent president wouldn't work. ask John Tyler
Nice idea, but just an independent president wouldn't work. ask John Tyler
(Don't have time to read the whole ref, but skimmed it.)
The thing seems to be that Tyler was not independent before taking office, just developed that streak after. While this may seem discouraging, a President that was elected to be an independent (or at least third-party) president, would have a lot more "political capital" than Tyler did.
Also, that was 150 years ago. Things are a bit different now...
Greg
My first suggestion has absolutely nothing to do with the government, its the major networks. Get them (via picketting, petition, boycott, whatever) to insist that no Presidential debate will be aired unless opened up to other parties. How do you think the DNC and RNC would feel if they didn't think they could get their candidate's message out in that forum?
There hasn't been a presidential debate in the United States since the mid 1980s. The debates were previously run by the League of Women Voters, a nonpartisan group that brooked little interference from the parties. (Though frequently no debates were held.)
The League wouldn't roll over for what the parties were demanding in 1988 and washed its hands of the mess. Since then we've had longer versions of the standard stump speech, which is what both parties wanted. If the major parties couldn't have their way, they simply wouldn't have debates. They've been skipped before.
I always thought that we should have an American Idol-style TV show during the Primaries.
Isn't that what we have for the entire election right now?
|
I sometimes wonder if implementing run-off elections nationwide would encourage people to vote for more third parties. It could theoretically make people more comfortable voting for them without feeling like they are throwing away their votes, and over time might make a difference.
That said, there are states where there are run-off elections for legislative and other offices and they still tend to be relatively two-party races anyway. That's not encouraging, but perhaps if it was nationwide, and given enough time, people might start to vote differently.
If the major parties couldn't have their way, they simply wouldn't have debates. They've been skipped before.
Individual ones, sure. But I don't think that a whole campaign has come and gone without a single debate, has there?
(And, yes, I realise the term "debate" is being used loosely here. That would be another change - insist on real debates. It would at least be more entertaining.)
Greg
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I sometimes wonder if implementing run-off elections nationwide would encourage people to vote for more third parties. It could theoretically make people more comfortable voting for them without feeling like they are throwing away their votes, and over time might make a difference.
That said, there are states where there are run-off elections for legislative and other offices and they still tend to be relatively two-party races anyway. That's not encouraging, but perhaps if it was nationwide, and given enough time, people might start to vote differently.
Feh, call me an elitist, but if you can't muster the effort to spend 20 mintues to vote, or get an absentee balot, now, then I really don't want you voting in the new easier election.
My second wife didn't vote, and I didn't force the issue. A friend of ours was horrified that she didn't vote and I didn't make her.
"Why don't you make her vote?"
"I'm not going to make her vote, and she doesn't take the effort to read the issues. It's once thing to have my vote balanced by someone who believes the other guy is better. Another entirely to have it negated because someone went "Lets see what pretty pattern I can make with the lights on the screen!" Unfortunately her political education far superseeded her loyalty...
Feh, call me an elitist, but if you can't muster the effort to spend 20 mintues to vote, or get an absentee balot, now, then I really don't want you voting in the new easier election.
I think Celestial meant that people would vote "differntly" not vote at all. His suspicion (probably true) is that a 3rd party vote is seen as a throw-away vote.
I personally disagree. I've voted for the 3rd party here in Canada plenty of times. And I've never felt like I was throwing away my ballot.
Greg
|
|
Feh, call me an elitist, but if you can't muster the effort to spend 20 mintues to vote, or get an absentee balot, now, then I really don't want you voting in the new easier election.I think Celestial meant that people would vote "differntly" not vote at all. His suspicion (probably true) is that a 3rd party vote is seen as a throw-away vote.
I personally disagree. I've voted for the 3rd party here in Canada plenty of times. And I've never felt like I was throwing away my ballot.
Greg
Doesn't Canada have proportional representation? There is no such thing as a "wasted vote" because of that. The US system is very different in that respect.
If the major parties couldn't have their way, they simply wouldn't have debates. They've been skipped before.Individual ones, sure. But I don't think that a whole campaign has come and gone without a single debate, has there?
Routinely. Until 1960 face to face debates between presidential office-seekers were pretty much unheard of. After 1960, they did not happen again until 1976.
In 1980 Carter didn't want to debate if Andersen (third party candidate) was on the stage. Reagan would not debate without him. So the first debate was Reagan v. Andersen, no Carter. The second was canceled outright, as was the VP debate. For the third it was Reagan v. Carter, no Andersen.
Since then the format has been two or three presidential debates and one with the VPs, but negotiations are routinely contentious and full of brinksmanship. I could easily see the whole thing being skipped again.
Doesn't Canada have proportional representation? There is no such thing as a "wasted vote" because of that. The US system is very different in that respect.
Well, yes, we have proportional representation. And yes third and forth party candidates do get elected to the House of Commons. But, what I was refering to was effectively voting for a candidate that has no hope in hell of getting elected.
For example. I live in Quebec, in a suburb of Montreal. Where I live, the Bloq Quebecois has a stranglehold on the popluar vote. But they are a separatist party, and I'm not, by any measure that you can come up with, a separatist. So I can't bring myself to vote for them. (If they would drop the separtist flag, then I'd consider it based on the other items in their platform.) But I still vote. Even though I know there is no way the candidate I vote for will win.
Greg
Since then the format has been two or three presidential debates and one with the VPs, but negotiations are routinely contentious and full of brinksmanship. I could easily see the whole thing being skipped again.
Thanks. I'm quite surprised to hear that Reagan debated a 3rd party candidate. I guess my bright idea wasn't so bright after all. Oh well...
Greg
|
|
Doesn't Canada have proportional representation? There is no such thing as a "wasted vote" because of that. The US system is very different in that respect.Well, yes, we have proportional representation. And yes third and forth party candidates do get elected to the House of Commons. But, what I was refering to was effectively voting for a candidate that has no hope in hell of getting elected.
For example. I live in Quebec, in a suburb of Montreal. Where I live, the Bloq Quebecois has a stranglehold on the popluar vote. But they are a separatist party, and I'm not, by any measure that you can come up with, a separatist. So I can't bring myself to vote for them. (If they would drop the separtist flag, then I'd consider it based on the other items in their platform.) But I still vote. Even though I know there is no way the candidate I vote for will win.
Greg
You wouldn't feel at all differently if there were two equally popular parties in Quebec, and your voting for a much less popular party meant that you didn't have a say in which of those two was going to represent you?
If the major parties couldn't have their way, they simply wouldn't have debates. They've been skipped before.Individual ones, sure. But I don't think that a whole campaign has come and gone without a single debate, has there?Routinely. Until 1960 face to face debates between presidential office-seekers were pretty much unheard of. After 1960, they did not happen again until 1976.
In 1980 Carter didn't want to debate if Andersen (third party candidate) was on the stage. Reagan would not debate without him. So the first debate was Reagan v. Andersen, no Carter. The second was canceled outright, as was the VP debate. For the third it was Reagan v. Carter, no Andersen.
Since then the format has been two or three presidential debates and one with the VPs, but negotiations are routinely contentious and full of brinksmanship. I could easily see the whole thing being skipped again.
This was also evident in the latest race, where less likely winners of the respective party nominations were quicly discarded in the debates (e.g. Kucinich and Gravel on the Democrats' side).
It then follows that less exposure, like third- or fourth-party candidates would suffer from, leads to less votes. So the whole debate system and the coverage of the media quickly decides who gets exposure and who doesn't.|
|
Since then the format has been two or three presidential debates and one with the VPs, but negotiations are routinely contentious and full of brinksmanship. I could easily see the whole thing being skipped again.Thanks. I'm quite surprised to hear that Reagan debated a 3rd party candidate. I guess my bright idea wasn't so bright after all. Oh well...
Greg
The 1992 presidential campaign saw a series of three-way debates, including the independent Perot/Stockdale ticket. In hindsight, it's a little surprising that Bush Sr and Clinton had patience for that...
I'd point out that they do. Ask Joseph Farrah.Am i stereotyping teabaggers? yes. Is that bad? also yes. Should the tea party movement try distance themselves from the tea baggers that are giving the movement a bad name? definitely.I find the double standard that is in place with regards to generalizations and stereotyping disgusting, personally. Take everything you just said and apply it to the practice of racial profiling, and watch the wailing and gnashing of teeth erupt from the left.
"No really, it's okay to make sweeping statements about a large, ideologically diverse group of people, because my comments are coming from a liberal point of view and are aimed at a bunch of white folks."
I'd like to counter that with Tom Tancredo.
Back to healthcare:
Did Sarah Palin's speech in Calgary get any play down south? She mentioned coming across the border to Canada for medical stuff as a kid.
*When it was closer to do so and
*before national Healthcare (provinicial Health Care?) in Canukistan.I can't link to the Hotair discussion I read on it.
Yeah, I saw something about that. It came across as this to me:
Palin: I don't want peas.Palin: I admit that when I was 6 years old, my parents made me eat peas.
Anti-Palins: Palin says she doesn't want peas, but then admits she and her family ate peas. She is a hypocrit!
It was about that intellectually meaningful.
Back to healthcare:
Did Sarah Palin's speech in Calgary get any play down south? She mentioned coming across the border to Canada for medical stuff as a kid.
*When it was closer to do so and
*before national Healthcare (provinicial Health Care?) in Canukistan.I can't link to the Hotair discussion I read on it.
Yeah, I saw something about that. It came across as this to me:
Palin: I don't want peas.
Palin: I admit that when I was 6 years old, my parents made me eat peas.
Anti-Palins: Palin says she doesn't want peas, but then admits she and her family ate peas. She is a hypocrit!It was about that intellectually meaningful.
Then there's the small twist that she has used that story with her brother before, except that time she said the family went down to Juneau instead of across the border.
So... pandering to her audience?
And I don't know the best way to open up the two party system.As I said to Bitter Thorn on the Republican thread, I don't buy it. You've brought way too much to the table in this thread and in others to throw up your hands(or perhaps shrug your shoulders) at this important topic. I don't care if it sounds crazy far right wing or rational far left wing ( ;-) ), give us SOMETHING on this, even if it's just a theory or two.
Part of the problem is that you need to really have each of the parties fracture simultaneously into 2-3 smaller parties. If one major party fractures and the other one doesn't, then that remaining major party dominates for a short time, until the other one reforms (it is better to run in hell than serve in heaven). If both fractured at the same time, then you might have a real chance of long term multiple party system.
Back to healthcare:
Did Sarah Palin's speech in Calgary get any play down south? She mentioned coming across the border to Canada for medical stuff as a kid.
*When it was closer to do so and
*before national Healthcare (provinicial Health Care?) in Canukistan.I can't link to the Hotair discussion I read on it.
Yeah, I saw something about that. It came across as this to me:
Palin: I don't want peas.
Palin: I admit that when I was 6 years old, my parents made me eat peas.
Anti-Palins: Palin says she doesn't want peas, but then admits she and her family ate peas. She is a hypocrit!It was about that intellectually meaningful.
Then there's the small twist that she has used that story with her brother before, except that time she said the family went down to Juneau instead of across the border.
So... pandering to her audience?
Yawn! It has no meaning way or another. Who cares? Anti-Palins? I got better things to waste my thoughts on than something as meaningless as that issue.
You wouldn't feel at all differently if there were two equally popular parties in Quebec, and your voting for a much less popular party meant that you didn't have a say in which of those two was going to represent you?
I've done it before. (I used to live in downtown Montreal, where the separatists are not as well represented, and things are a bit more even. Still voted for the guy without the snowball's chance. :)
The way I see it, if you take that train of thought then, the fact of the matter is, unless your vote is on the side of the one who wins, you've "wasted" your ballot.
I don't honestly believe that an Alabama democrat feels that he/she is well reprented by a Democratic Senator from New York, even if the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. So what's the difference if that Alabama democrat voted for a 3rd party? There would still be 2 Republican senators from Alabama. And I'm sure there are other places in the US where being of one particular party can feel very lonely.
In a democracy, there is only one place where I know my voice will be heard, and that's in the voting booth. I'd rather vote for someone I want to win, rather than someone I think will win. In the end if I vote for the winning guy, but he doesn't hold my view on policy, what good have I done?
Greg
You wouldn't feel at all differently if there were two equally popular parties in Quebec, and your voting for a much less popular party meant that you didn't have a say in which of those two was going to represent you?I've done it before. (I used to live in downtown Montreal, where the separatists are not as well represented, and things are a bit more even. Still voted for the guy without the snowball's chance. :)
The way I see it, if you take that train of thought then, the fact of the matter is, unless your vote is on the side of the one who wins, you've "wasted" your ballot.
I don't honestly believe that an Alabama democrat feels that he/she is well reprented by a Democratic Senator from New York, even if the Democrats hold the majority in the Senate. So what's the difference if that Alabama democrat voted for a 3rd party? There would still be 2 Republican senators from Alabama. And I'm sure there are other places in the US where being of one particular party can feel very lonely.
In a democracy, there is only one place where I know my voice will be heard, and that's in the voting booth. I'd rather vote for someone I want to win, rather than someone I think will win. In the end if I vote for the winning guy, but he doesn't hold my view on policy, what good have I done?
Greg
Unless you are voting against the person you REALLY don't want to win. Cthulu isn't always in the running, and so sometimes you actually do vote for the lesser of two evils.
|
|
We don't have prop rep in federal elections, it is still first past the post.
How ever each vote for a particular party gives them a certain amount of campaign money for the next election. (1.95 a year I think per vote). Also, if your party gets at least 10% of the vote in an electoral district they get 60% of their expenses paid for.
I believe its the major source of campaign financing for the political parties. Getting the vote is crucial even if you don't get an MP elected.