What are the popular political parties besides Democrats and Republicans. I'll be voting for the first time this year and both parties have especially sucked recently so I'll doubt I'll vote for them.
Printable View
What are the popular political parties besides Democrats and Republicans. I'll be voting for the first time this year and both parties have especially sucked recently so I'll doubt I'll vote for them.
Legalize Marijuana.
legalize marriage to your mom..
There is no real third party alternative in the United States. It just doesn't exist. There are only three real third parties of any note; the Greens, the Libertarians, and the anarchy of the Reform Party. The first two were driven almost solely by a select number of powerful personalities that have never been elected and now have either left their party (Ralph Nader), died (Harry Browne), and the Reform Party is so wrought with mismanagement and infighting that it's splintered into pieces.
So, to quote Kang: "Go ahead! Throw your vote away!"
You're forgetting the Natural Law Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Yogic Flying FTW
All of these parties sound like great choices for avatar to throw away his vote. He's a prime example why the voting age should be raised (if we can't go back to land owning males).
I too can vote this year, but I'm having a hard time justifying voting for someone since all of the likely candidates just absolutely piss me off here. Ohio sucks ass.
Vote for Sherrod Brown. edit: Mike DeWine is a bad bad guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomi
p.s. if you want to see the Republicans out of power through 2008, its a pretty important election.
On a national level 3rd parties really sadly are wasting your vote. Their is just not enough support for them. The system is just too hard to penetrate plus a really solid and well managed party has never really surfaced.
However, your local area might have a 3rd party that is particuarly strong that you might be interested in. I have no idea how you can find this out, other than to google it or ask somebody. For instance the green party does pretty well around my area in wisconsin and I have voted them into local offices on more than one occasion.
I agree. It sucks to think about it this way but really you sometimes just have to vote for a seat rather than wanting to vote that individual in based on their actual qualifications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
From what I've gathered, third parties do so poorly because a lot of them never look at the big picture. There are normally a dozen ass hats every election running for parties you've never heard of. They do little to get their voice out there and organize themselves.
They also do stupid shit like run for the prez and not smaller offices. Until we have third party people in normal political offices; we will most likely not see a third party president.
We may still not see one even then, as the other two parties have a lot of power at their disposal for smiting the little guy. A viable third party would almost have to split from the other two like the night before an election.
No, they do poorly because our electoral system (first past the post) is ill-suited to more than 2 viable parties. Seriously. I can't remember the details, but basically, the way we divide up votes and award winners actually leads to, or at the very least strongly encourages, a two-party system. It's interesting, I learned it in a basic PS class.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Of course that only talks about the national level, you're right on the 2nd point. But there's nothing wrong or taxing about putting a guy up on the Presidential election, it shows you're for real. And, I think parties like Green or Libertarian do actually focus more on local.
Let me try to understand. Me caring about my vote and not wanting to support 2 parties that fail to impress me with their vision of the future makes me a prime example of why 18 years shouldn't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
So my vote for prez is worthless if I don't like neither the Democrat or Republican guy. WTF?
=/Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Thats kind of sad, because I'm pretty sure it was you or gozen that I got a lot of that info from, like 3 years ago, like the first time we talked about this.
yeah, sadly pretty much. Untill there is a some how a magical strong third party, or we restructure our way of voting, you are shitting your vote away. Hell if you don't live in three big vote states, you are shitting your vote away.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
The fact that you want to vote for idealistic bullshit instead of accepting reality is why 18 year-olds shouldn't vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
Yes, it is. Again, it's not warm and fuzzy, but it's the truth.Quote:
So my vote for prez is worthless if I don't like neither the Democrat or Republican guy. WTF?
But even the Democrats here are pretty conservative shits. I can't find a single one of them that doesn't have an '(insert candidate) believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman only.' ad campaign. Even our liberals are super-Christian-valued like that. It irritates me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Politics are totally bogus.
That's because saying otherwise makes you unelectable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomi
It's not impossible for a third-party candidate to get airtime during a national election if they've got the jack (Ross Perot anyone?), but the problem is that the two parties are the most organized and can flex influence anywhere in the US, they have the infrastructure. The third-party has to rely on the 'grassroots' which is cool, but not effective compared to a major national machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
If I can be crude for a moment: Fuck God.
The day the werewolf, dracula, and swamp thing show up at my door is the day I'll start believing in fairy tales. I understand that god is a big deal in this country, but the only reason people believe in god is due to fear. Show me a christian, and I'll show you one scared person.
If you want to bring up living in reality Yoshi, perhaps it's time to address this issue. God was real important up until fairly recently, so I'll admit it's hard for people to let it go, but an 'all-powerful, wrathful' supreme being simply isn't relevant anymore.
We should elect Bill Hick's corpse.
Yeah, for the majority. I won't vote for any of them for that reason alone though, so it goes both ways.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The majority is all that matters. That's the definition of unelectable.
Remember, ladies and gentlemen, I didn't say this.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Do a write-in and vote for yourself. If you can't bring yourself to be a realist enough to buckle down and pick the person closest to your views, then pick the one person you KNOW represents your best interests. Don't skip your chance to vote, it may seem pointless but if you believe in this American experiment it's kind of a duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomi
If you really don't give a shit, then just don't even bother. Stay at home and eat nachos. Just don't complain in the future.
I didn't either, but I won't argue with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I never said I didn't agree, I just didn't want to be labeled as a Christian basher again. It's so easy it's like being accused of outsmarting the retarded.
http://www.muppetcentral.com/_images...rt_dancing.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I want to vote, and I want to give a shit about politics, it's just very hard to sometimes with all the shit that flies around. Even getting accurate, unbiased information on what the candidates actually support is a huge pain sometimes. I'm doing that now, figuring out which guy I hate less and going for that. It just bites when there's one big issue that pisses you off that you have to overlook due to no alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
You'll get used to compromising. Bush is nowhere near conservative enough for my tastes, but he sure as hell was better than Gore or Kerry.
Kerry was awful, but atleast he wasn't Bush.
You guys give the multi-party system too much credit. Puerto Rico has had 3 parties for over 50 years and all it means is that you have 3 dipshits doing nothing instead of two. Nothing changes.
As sad as it is, third parties are essentially a joke. In North Carolina, if you vote for one you are technically wasting your vote as well as practically. This is even worse considering that the Republican and Democrat platforms are pretty much indistinguishable for all intents and purposes at this point. The left/right conflict is a sad mummer's farce that needs to be left behind.
It has been effectively demonstrated time and again that third-party politicians have little chance under our system, and too many parties usually lead to dictatorships. I often wonder though, how viable a non-partisan system would be. Does anyone know of any republics in the worldthat don't use political parties or know of any books theorizing how non-partison elections and government might work?
You're clearly not paying attention. That just isn't the case, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasteel
No. In fact, in most other countries political parties are more important (people vote for them, not individuals).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasteel
The problem with our two-party system is that it's essentially a four-party system that divides itself under two all-encompassing banners of Republican and Democrat.
the Communist leftists, social left/fiscal right, social right/fiscal right, and the Fascist neocons?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I'd say the right is more divided by religion versus economics.
The right is divided by Michael Savage.
I'd say the looney left, the moderates, the Bushite Cult, and the cavetroll conservatives (a.k.a. paleoconservatives).Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Savage doesn't even know what he is anymore. He goes from loathing the war in Iraqi to demanding we stay there just so we can spill more arab blood. Then he starts talking about spaghetti recipes and how smart he thinks he is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Which is why I listen to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Just 60 years ago black people getting equal rights was called idealistic bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Is it wrong to want some change?
I wonder where you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
WTF does this have to do with anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Who said it wasn't idealism? Many people in the black community continue to say they're disenfranchised with the system and their votes are surpressed. Both the black and female communities vote in record low numbers despite the hard battles that had to be fought for them to get that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
Yet we have the right. I don't care if I'm the only black guy in my state to vote. I just want my vote to mean something.
Or atleast i did until this thread. U.S politics=hopeless.
Transparent character attack aside, I don't fall into any of those catagories. That's why I'm displeased with the whole beltway politick.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
It's not hopeless, but it does pose a significant challenge. Really the best thing you can do is work within the two parties to try and elevate better candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
Kerry was such a big peace of shit that he validated just about every conspiracy theory I've ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Really, that was the best man that the Demo's had? They couldn't rangle up another Clinton, or a Clinto light?
It's like they thought "lol, bush is such a turd, we can run any dipshit we want against him, and still win. lol lol lol XD "
What does this even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
He wasn't chosen as the best, he was chosen by the people (Democrats) to be their candidate. Personally, I think Edwards should have been the main man, he had just about as much political experience as GWB going in, and of the Dems in that were running for the spot he was the most charismatic, least tainted, and had the most crossover appeal.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
That's not really how it works, IronPlant. In all actuality, I'd say the DNC had hoped Daschle would win the primary.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Yoshi made a comment about non-religious people being unelectable. It's a true statement. I was making an admittedly crude and hateful attempt to shine a little light on the absurdity of the way that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar
On topic, there is no viable alternative to republicans and democrats at the moment. I think only voting for someone you "hate the least" kind of defeats the purpose of voting. I appreciate the right, but I've never been able to use it in good conscience.
It means that Kerry was such a pile of shit that it made me wonder if we really do have alien lizard overlords pulling the shots. It defiantly didn't feel like logical human beings had any say in either part at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Fuck Edwards. He was a fucking trial lawyer. His ideas about tort reform were a horrible joke for the little guy. He wanted to make a committee of lawyers for people to go up against before they could sew people.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Do you have any idea what that would do to poor people/lower middle class people? It's like a huge fuck you to those people, because they won't be able to afford as good of a lawyer as the rich company. It was essentially a free pass to rich companies that could afford a better law team to argue their case better to the committee.
It would also increase time and case settlements because of the extra time and effort that said committee would add to the legal system. People would have to start suing for more to pay their lawyers for that extra work. It would also take them longer to get the money they needed because of this extra step(s).
I can not support a man that would concoct any idea that has the potential to hurt so many people. The whole idea was just slimy and full of BS.
I know that. It still felt that way. I wanted to vote demo that ellection. Kerry was a huge wtf for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Not at all, the point of voting by the people is that we each choose our own parameters for what we cast our vote for. So, I may cast my vote because I feel that voting for the major party candidate who is most in line with my views means I have a better chance of seeing atleast those views I do share with the candidate advanced in Washington. Joe Blow sixpack after me in the booth may vote for whomever he thinks is killing the al-Queda who sent their spacemen from Baghdad to shoot a cruise missile into the Pentagon.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
It is notoriously unreliable as a way to decide the person best 'qualified' to lead (a flaw of democracy going back all the way to the days of Plato), but the idea is that these people only rule at the will of the people, thus by voting someone into office they have gained our conscent to lead us.
I think the germans are ahead of us in the democracy department. If we really want to keep/give our consent, we need a niether option on our ballet.
There needs to be a realistic way of letting the government know that it's people are not happy with it. Not having that option forces us to be passive and go with the lesser of two evils.
The only problem Kerry had was that he'd been in Washington too long before he decided to run.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Are you joking? Do you know anything about John Edwards background? He fought for the little guy against big corporations that were selling pool drain covers that didn't work and turned a child's innards inside out. Also, his kind of TORT reform is peanuts compared to the kind Republicans support, oh and have since made progress to passing through.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
So what did you do?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
There is, though. It's called organizing. When voters with an agenda to push consolidate the parties do an about face quick as you please.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
That's effectively what I mean. I think both sides are completely off. How can I really support someone who hates queers, but thinks we should crack down on big business? I can't justify giving someone like that any support, even if I do agree with a few of their points.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
did he do that for free? (if he did, please link me because I can't find anything saying he did.) He's a trial lawyer, that is the kind of shit they do for a living. Him fighting for that little girl doesn't make him a hero or a saint. The facts are that he got the company to give $25 million, the largest personal injury award in North Carolina history and he used his son's death in the case to get an emotional response from the jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
You can make all kinds of assumptions out of all that info. You can assume that he is an awesome guy for taking it to the man, or you can assume he is a self serving turd that would use his own son's death to win a case. It can really go either way.
His ideas on TORT reform seem self serving because it insures that he and his ilk continue to have a job if not more jobs, while caps would not.
Just because I don't like Edward’s ideas of tort reform, doesn't mean I like the republican’s ideas either. Though I would suppose that a cap (if that is the one you are talking about) would be better than not getting anything because you can't afford a lawyer good enough to argue your case in front of the magical suing committee.
I didn't vote. I believe the choice of no action is still a choice. I voted by not voting.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
That is only one option and perhaps not the best one. When that is the only option you give the people you put more power in the hands of the insane. One of the reasons American politics are so fucked up is that small interest groups are just wily and nutbars enough to get their shit together and make their gay hating kill everyone that isn't American voice heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Everyone else, that is sane, is busy trying to get through their day.
He's smarter than you.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
I don't understand. Does this mean you're opposed to "tort reform" (an extremely broad and imprecise term in itself)?Quote:
His ideas about tort reform were a horrible joke for the little guy. He wanted to make a committee of lawyers for people to go up against before they could sew people.
From your mangled summation it's tough to tell, but I'm guessing you're referring to one of Edwards's medical malpractice reform proposals. He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court. A mild proposal to be sure, one many times milder than his opponents' proposals -- which, I assure you, would be much harder on "the little guy."
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040126.html
This statement doesn't make any sense, so I'll just interject this thought: how could Edwards's proposal make the present personal injury/malpractice climate any worse? Attorneys turn down clients all the time because their claims aren't worth enough money to justify any expenditure of time and work.Quote:
People would have to start suing for more to pay their lawyers for that extra work.
Suing people is much more expensive than you think.
Lets not beat around the bush Sleeve. Why don't you go ahead and call me a fucktard so I can report you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
Don't be a gozen and assume that because I'm not for A, I must be for B.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I don't know if you are getting "He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court." from the internet or your own memory but I distinctly remember him saying that at least in part said group would have trial lawyers on it. This was when he was asked point blank about it on tv.
that is a retarded reason to do anything that has to do with human life. People need to put this shit into practice because they believe in it, not because "eh, what could it hurt?"Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
thank you captain fucking obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I'm not in the habit of assuming anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
From your posts, it is unclear what you are "for", hence my question. Given your distaste for Edwards's malpractice reform proposal (which, incidentally, was based on a complete misunderstanding of that proposal) and your own response, you appear to favor a policy that would protect the interests of "the little guy." And yet you show at least an inkling of support for damage caps, which have nothing but bad repercussions for personal injury/malpractice plaintiffs.
This leads me to believe that you, in fact, do not know what you are talking about.
Did I ever say that such a panel would not have trial lawyers on it? They are experts, after all.Quote:
I don't know if you are getting "He suggested that a medical physician (or perhaps a panel of experts) certify a complaint before it could be filed in federal court." from the internet or your own memory but I distinctly remember him saying that at least in part said group would have trial lawyers on it.
Let me put it another way. The legal system is extremely expensive, and heavily weighted towards defendants (in civil cases). As such, it is extremely difficult for individual plaintiffs to prevail in malpractice and negligence lawsuits, for myriad reasons. You haven't provided any persuasive reasons why Edwards's extremely mild proposal would have caused the problems you fear. In fact, the competing proposals of Republicans would ironically cause the problems you seem to be concerned about.Quote:
that is a retarded reason to do anything that has to do with human life. People need to put this shit into practice because they believe in it, not because "eh, what could it hurt?"
(Let me just disclaim that I am no way in favor of this proposal. I think it's unnecessary, redundant, and probably too expensive. But keep in mind that Edwards's idea is really just a cog in a vastly complicated Democratic counterproposal for tort reform that will never see the light of day, and it should be viewed within that context.)
I did not say that I was in favor of caps. I just said that some money was better than no money. Which is a realistic possibility where your lawsuit can be flat out denied existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I don't see how I misunderstood anything. You admit that the approval group will have trial lawyers on it, and you admit that a person has to have the approval of this group to proceed with their lawsuit. Neither of those facts discredits my assertion that this would add time and money to an already long and expensive process. It also does nothing to discredit my assertion that this would put more power in the hands of the rich because they can afford better lawyers to argue their POV to said group. It will essentially add another litigation layer that the rich will have an upper hand against.
Yes, the law system is bad for individual plaintiffs. Everyone knows this. But the current way of getting around this is shitty. Typically what lawyers do is try to get as many people in on a lawsuit as possible. They then sue everyone involved. In the case of medical stuff, they will sue the clinic, doctor, pharmacist, drug company and/or hospital. In doing so, they manage to keep the case in lower courts (because the doctor and pharmacist are individuals) and are statistically more capable of winning the case. It can be argued that this is a dirty practice because often times not all of the people getting sued played any part in hurting anyone. Normally it is only one or two people at fault, or a pharmaceutical company is entirely at fault. BUT the good thing about doing it this way is that the cost of litigation is spread out between all the people who sue as a group.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I don't see how the "cap" idea (the only republican reform policy brought up so far) would necessarily cause all the problems I said Edwards idea had. Caps would not increase litigation time nor would they flat out deny people the right to sue. The only problem that it would share with what I accused Edwards’ idea of is that it would limit how much money they were awarded, which could be a very bad thing, depending on how big the cap is.
As for what I'm for, I am for a compromise. When people get hurt they need help, however the current situation of lawsuits is hurting everyone. Everyone factors this cost into their end cost, driving up prices for everyone. It also hurts some areas’ access to qualified medical care. Some states our having trouble keeping professionals like baby doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. In places like the south, there are literally a few counties where the average source of income is from people winning lawsuits over diet pills. One of the reasons Republicans are so for cap TORT reform, is because it is their retarded redneck relatives that are filing so many of the bullshit claims.
So I'm not really for either plan. I read about a really good idea two years ago and posted the link here. I'll have to dig for it.
I think we all know this. It was just another "gay marriage" issue, used to get people emotional before voting day.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
In the end nothing will be fixed, people wont get money to fix their broken legs, but old women will get two mill for eating hot french fries, and the rest of us will have to pay larger cost to make up for these huge settlements.
Most lawsuits are in fact "flat out denied existence" under our present legal system. Only a small minority survive summary judgment, let alone prevail at trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
I'm not "admitting" anything, I just summarized my understanding of Edwards's proposal.Quote:
I don't see how I misunderstood anything. You admit that the approval group will have trial lawyers on it, and you admit that a person has to have the approval of this group to proceed with their lawsuit.
Neither you nor I know the full details of this proposal, but speaking from personal knowledge and experience, it doesn't sound like it would make the process more expensive than it already is. In other words, I doubt that this idea would bring the entire malpractice/negligence industry to a screeching halt. Might put more money in the pockets of a few experts, but that's about it.Quote:
Neither of those facts discredits my assertion that this would add time and money to an already long and expensive process.
If I understand the Edwards proposal correctly, it's a simple certification panel, not an adversarial hearing. In other words, the defendant-to-be would not have the opportunity to preemptively argue against the complaint before it is even filed. The panel would simply review the claim on the merits.Quote:
It also does nothing to discredit my assertion that this would put more power in the hands of the rich because they can afford better lawyers to argue their POV to said group. It will essentially add another litigation layer that the rich will have an upper hand against.
You're conflating a lot of legal scenarios here into one unwieldy straw-man, but I'll ignore it and say yes, class action lawsuits are one way to reduce costs among multiple plaintiffs (if that was what you were trying to say).Quote:
It can be argued that this is a dirty practice because often times not all of the people getting sued played any part in hurting anyone. Normally it is only one or two people at fault, or a pharmaceutical company is entirely at fault. BUT the good thing about doing it this way is that the cost of litigation is spread out between all the people who sue as a group.
To pick a few examples, damage award caps and limits on class action filings means that fewer plaintiff's attorneys will be able to shoulder the expense of filing and prosecuting lawsuits. Don't forget that the vast majority of malpractice/negligence cases are handled on a contingency basis. Republican proposals, on the whole, generally make it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover any money at all.Quote:
I don't see how the "cap" idea (the only republican reform policy brought up so far) would necessarily cause all the problems I said Edwards idea had.
Nor would the Edwards plan (at least, no more than the current system).Quote:
Caps would not increase litigation time nor would they flat out deny people the right to sue.
The problems with tort reform go much deeper than that, as I suggested above.Quote:
The only problem that it would share with what I accused Edwards’ idea of is that it would limit how much money they were awarded, which could be a very bad thing, depending on how big the cap is.
Malpractice insurance is a complicated problem, one that implicates both the legal system and the medical profession itself. Tort reform without meaningful reform of state medical licensure boards only punishes the victims of legitimate malpractice.Quote:
As for what I'm for, I am for a compromise. When people get hurt they need help, however the current situation of lawsuits is hurting everyone. Everyone factors this cost into their end cost, driving up prices for everyone. It also hurts some areas’ access to qualified medical care. Some states our having trouble keeping professionals like baby doctors due to the high cost of malpractice insurance. In places like the south, there are literally a few counties where the average source of income is from people winning lawsuits over diet pills. That is one of the reasons Republicans are so for caps, is because their redneck relatives are the very ones shitty enough to sue over stupid shit.
From the link you gave, "He suggests that a lawyer who brings three frivolous lawsuits should be forbidden from bringing another one for ten years" sounds like very serious business. I have a hard time believing something with that kind of authority, wouldn't add cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I've yet to read or hear anything about how he plans for this to work. I don't believe he has discussed how the three parties will interact.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
No, I am not. I have personally seen that scenario play out two or three times.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I don't believe I ever said otherwise. There is a difference between talking about the differences between two policies and talking about the entire beast that is tort reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
EDIT: I don't really wish to discuss this further. Unless you plan on providing insights that only a person like you would have, I think continuing will be pointless. You obviously feel you have a very informed and superior opinion about this and I'm not really equipped with the vocabulary to argue with you about it. I'm interested in knowing more, but not in having my points pushed aside because I’m not an authority.
This thread reminds me of StriderKyo's post about buttcheeks. You know, the one about not wanting to argue with the retarded kid.
I don't buy this excuse. You're not proving anything to politicans by not voting except that you don't care about democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
You have a better one?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Wrong, just because wackos have been the only ones to effectively organize in politics over the last twenty or so years doesn't mean they're the only ones capable of doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
If they cared enough about seeing a change they'd make the time. Though, you haphazardly bring up a good point; national election days should be official holidays and / or workers should not be able to be penalized for showing up late or leaving early in order to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
I have a new strategy for political threads. If buttplant chimes in even remotely close to my side, I'm leaving the thread. He's like a homicide bomber that accidentially detonates in a mosque.
Hmmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by sleeveboy
I'm not a "retarded kid." If anything, everyone involved is the "retarded kid" because many of you can't argue properly in political threads. Most of you want to "win" arguments and "own" the other guy so much that these kinds of threads are pointless here. "We" have very little interest in getting the other side to understand our POV. We systematically attack the opinions of others but rarely give an adequate fallow up that could persuade others to come over to the correct conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't know why, but many of you confuse politics with objective topics like science or math and assume that by debunking the thoughts of others, you're automatically the winner. This however is not the case for politics since most views are seen as subjective opinions. In politics, just because A is wrong, B, C, or D is not instantly made correct.
Simpler put, if your arguing online with a “retard” and you can’t make any headway with your point, you are probably equally retarded. It shouldn’t be hard to educate someone that obviously knows so little about a topic. If you can’t get anyone to agree with you that didn’t agree with you already, your ability to argue or your argument itself may not be as great as you personally think it is.
P.S. You’ve gotten better at this since you’ve graduated. You actually find the time to come up with links and thought out explanations. You also reframe from starting your arguments with “lol, retard.” Well most of the time.
TLDR
TLDR
That isn't an excuse. It is how I feel about it. I did not like either candidate. I felt the entire thing was a mockery of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
uh yeah, did you miss the thing I said about how the German's get a neither vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
We need that. It's a clear way of showing how the people feel.
I did not say that they were the only ones capable. I only said that it gives those kinds of people more power because they are easily motivated when compared to normal sane people.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
It's easy for you to say that considering the career you've chosen.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
But I must ask, why I have I not heard of the great Gozen foundation in the great smokeys? You know, because you are so organized and have made so much time for this.
Simpler? :bang:Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
God damn you Microsoft Word
Did you notice how no one argued with me after I rephrased my earlier point agreeing with you? It's because you're on the right track, but your logic is a off. I totally agree with you, but would never state it this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
You're putting too much thought into it. Gozen enjoys being a prick to me. I could say his shit smells like roses and he'd find a way to argue with me about it. By the end of the day he'd be declaring me a fool from the roof tops.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Buttcheeks is a whipping boy for Gozen and Diff.
Sorry Buttcheeks.
What the fuck does my career have anything to do with this?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Ignoring your sarcasm, I'm actually a member of the College Democrats, the League of Conservation voters, the Videogame Voters Network, and the Center for Media and Democracy. None of them are full time jobs, most of them require little more from me than writing letters to Congressman and giving donations. The one I'm most actively involved in (college democrats) meets once a week for about an hour, not exactly asking for a pound of flesh IronPlant.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
No, it's a stupid idea. All it says to me is that someone didn't care enough about politics until the very last minute. If you're so displeased with the candidates running you should have been active in your party's primary trying to get the guy you did support the nomination.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
What in the hell do you talk about?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Any number of things, right now we're organizing support in the area for Rick Trent and Harold Ford, Jr., working to get out the vote on campus and on the other area campuses. Sometimes we have, rather heated, debates about the direction the party is or should be taking. We organize events on campus, like the multi-cultural expo and voter registration drives. All manner of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
thats awesome. But I barely have time between H.W. and sleep to find time to play with myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Great, Europe does something you like and it becomes an awesome idea that the US should adopt, but fuck if you don't like it, it’s obviously stupid. You hypocritical bastard.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
And here is a news flash for you, most people have no damn idea how to do what you just advised. How the hell does someone get "active in your party's primary trying to get the guy you did support the nomination." Can I walk down to my local politictarium and get a pamphlet on this?
Europe has plenty of bad ideas, I never once claimed it was utopia across the pond. The idea of introducing a 'neither' vote to a national election is one of those bad ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Every state, every city, every county has a local DNC and RNC chapter. Get in contact with them and tell them you want to start volunteering. Then get to know the local players in your party's pool of candidates and find the one that you agree with the most, then work to see him get the nomination. I won't lie and say it doesn't require some level of committment, but if you're really passionate about seeing someone who truly represents your viewpoint in Washington than you should be willing to make this investment of your time and dedication.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Butt fuck?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
..If you don't like it..You probably should.
This is bullshit. I don't disagree with you simply to be contrarian with any position you take. I honestly disagree with you and I show it by presenting my points. It's not my fault that everytime you try to explain yourself it turns into a trainwreck.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Main Entry: con·trar·i·an
Pronunciation: k&n-'trer-E-&n, kän-
Function: noun
: a person who takes a contrary position or attitude; specifically
I know what the word means. I just thought that it was funny that you used it.
What's funny about it?
Is that an excuse to not vote or pay attention to politics, or are you just saying that you always feel dirty when you vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
I think he said what he meant the first time, spo.
A "neither" vote is a retarded idea, and Germany's government system is entirely different from ours.Quote:
Great, Europe does something you like and it becomes an awesome idea that the US should adopt, but fuck if you don't like it, it’s obviously stupid. You hypocritical bastard.
Well how else do I keep two shit heads I don't like, out of office today? Not five months ago, or a year ago, but if two dipshits, today are running, how do I keep both of them out?
How does a neither vote resolve this conundrum? Whoever gets the most votes wins. If "neither" wins the majority its not like the seat goes unfilled.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
They can do it all over again, with new canidates.
I think it's an infringement on the freedoms of the failed candidates if they can't run again (without a Constitutional Amendment). Also, sounds like a waste of money.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
But again, this is all irrelevant. Do you have any idea how Germany's electoral and government system works? Because it's nothing like here.
well make them wait one out then. If the people don't want them today, what makes them think they will want them next week? And I don't care if it waste their money. If Henze, Big Oil, or the RNA want to waste their money, they can go right ahead (and yes I realize some of the election process comes out of our pockets, but if something like this resulted in us getting a better leader, I'd find a way to cope.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I don't really care how Germany's electoral and government system works. I want more options than "deal with it" and "pray that airforce one falls out of th sky" or "please fall down the whitehouse stairs and get hurt just bad enough that you can't lead the country."
God diff, you take nice fucking forevers to type up a reply
No, it wastes our money. Taxpayer money holding all these elections. Do you remember that special election in California? The state spent like $60 million on that.Quote:
And I don't care if it waste their money.
You should, because different governmental systems lead to different causes and effects and interactions. One effect may not be suitable in another place. A parliamentary system works ENTIRELY different from ours.Quote:
I don't really care how Germany's electoral and government system works.
Anyway, in terms of voting systems, Germany has a Mixed Member Proportional Representation. Ours is FPTP. There's a difference and that difference is likely where it makes sense to offer a vote for nobody. It'd be cool if you can provide a link to show where this mythical "neither vote" is applied. Besides, Germany has more viable parties.
In any case, in our system the dude with the most votes wins, no matter how many they are (remember when Repubs said Clinton was illegitimate because he got <50%?), and I think it'd take a Constitutional Amendment to change that. I think, within the framework of this country an instant run-off system could work.
uh yeah, I think I acknowledged that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
How about each party gives us more options? Like we can pick between three guys to be prez, from each side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
They do, it's called the fucking primary process IronPlant and I've been trying to tell you about it for a page and a half.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
no body knows about it but you gozen
You really should know about the primary process cheeks. It's not like it's a big secret. I wish it was a bit broader (not sure if that's a word) than it is; IE, narrow it down to like 2-3 guys from all the peeps who go for it. I agree we should have more choices for government after the hardcore politicos get their say in primary voting. The reasoning behind this is simple: No one really votes in primaries. Maybe that's wrong, but it's the way it is. Give the mases more choices than: Shit & Shittier. Maybe a third level, or fouth level removed from 'absolute shit' and I'd find someone I can stomach voting for.
See this is where I come in and tell you its time to start doing your job as an American citizen. How can you be surprised when nobody votes except the hardcore nuts and... hardcore nuts are the ones running? I mean, seriously, use your head. People will represent those who vote for them. Vote early, vote often, and hold the official accountable. That's what you have to do. Yea, it's tough. Yea, it's a thankless thing to do, writing LTEs and calling Congressional offices and sending money to the ACLU or RNC or whoever. But it's important and nobody said democracy was free or easy. In fact, quite the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Elected officials are just the representation of those who are voting. That's all they ever were or will be. It's even in the Federalist (I forget what number), if the people voting are corrupt headcases then a corrupt headcase will be in office. This is not a surprise.
I wouldn't even know where to start. They don't teach shit about this in school. They dance around the issue a lot but they never come out and say "these are some of the several ways you can play a part in the US." Everything outside of voting for the big guys is ignored in public school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
It would almost seem intentional.
I follow you, but sometimes it's literaly impossible to vote. If it's a choice between fired from my job for a no-show, or voting, I'm going to go with what keeps me alive. If your employer had to give you a pass for a few hours to vote in elections, that'd be a real start toward some change in this country. I know this next thing is a bit over-reaching, but... If you follow the logic, who can afford to go and vote? The wealthier (not the super-rich or some conspiracy shit), or the business owners, not the average employee.
Yea, but get involved with College Repubs/Dems (whatever you are), join the PACs that cater to you, etc. Send money to candidates you do like, etc. We're talking about $10-$20 a month here.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
Polls in most states are open from like, 8-9. I go after work. So do most people.Quote:
If it's a choice between fired from my job for a no-show, or voting, I'm going to go with what keeps me alive.
ugh, I really don't want to join Mississippi policlubs. It will be like picking between retards and people with serious head injuries.
Yes I’m misinformed, but I put thought into things. From what exposure I’ve had with these people, they are the opposite. They are informed but they put no thought into what they are reading. It seems like these kids are just puking up shit their parents said back when they lived at home. Just the other day my roommate had one of them in over and he was talking about how stupid it is to learn history, “like it’s so stupid, why do we need to know that stuff.” I do not what to debate anything with people who say things like that.
I do not have 10/20 a month. My average meal is walmart beefaroni, or peanutbutter and honey sandwitches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
"Mah back...is spineless!
Mah belly...is yella!
Ah am the American non-voter!"
Every single idea for how butt can get involved he has shot down. So whatever.
Do you want to discuss things with people stupider than me?