Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on December 22, 2010, 09:55:28 am
-
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=906.
An interesting read.
-
The rich do indeed have a disproportionate influence, but not in every domain. I just helped get this published. (http://www.mit.edu/~jhainm/Paper/Eggmueller2010.pdf)
-
Not really my area, I'll grant, especially since it's a foreign country, but I've always suspected a big chunk of the reason for the strong right wing in America is a generational hangover from the cold war. People wanted to distinguish themselves from the commies, and propaganda helped push this along. They're communists, they're bad, so we'll be a market economy, and we'll be good. Anyone who tries to mess with that is a commie, and therefore bad.
-
It took me half the article before I caught on that this wasn't eventually going to be about left-handed people.
-
I don't know what America they're talking about. My state has plenty of leftists. My state is also on the verge of a budgetary implosion. Those two couldn't possibly be related.
-
Probably not related, actually, since people's stated political leanings rarely determine their actual fiscal behavior.
Interestingly for Sushi, left-handed people are on average far more successful than right-handed people. A disproportionate number of presidents have been left-handed.
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You haven't seen the California budget (or complete lack of one), have you? California is a paragon of progressiveness that's damn close to defaulting on its immense debts. Our legislature refuses to consider any serious cuts to social spending as necessary to the budget problem. If that isn't influenced by political leanings, I don't know what would be.
-
Misunderstood. Will post deluge of papers when I am back in the lab.
There is experimental data going back to the 60s or 70s which explains how fiscally conservative people actually behave: they advocate fiscal moderation but generally voice support for every individual government program in question, with support varying heavily based on how the poll question is worded. Fascinating stuff.
-
who the hell looks at america and doesn't see a lot of leftists? o.0
-
who the hell looks at america and doesn't see a lot of leftists? o.0
All of us who don't live in it.
The article is a very insightful look at the complete lunacy of the American fiscal-political environment (at least at the federal level). In no other country do you see the grassroots screaming in favour of financial policy that clearly favours the wealthy to their detriment. The bizarre thing is the phenomenon applies equally to the educated and the uneducated.
This latest round of tax cut extensions is a perfect example. The Republicans, back traditionally by the very wealthy but also by conservative lower-middle class voters, were overwhelmingly in favour of extending tax cuts to the wealthy... which isn't surprising. What is surprising is the complete lack of criticism of this policy by 2/3 of the people who elected them and won't benefit from said cuts, but will actually receive financial harm because of them.
A large portion of the problem is that ordinary Americans, thanks to polarized politics, no longer understand that liberal != Communist. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of Republicans have absolutely no idea that Reagan and Bush1's policies are actually derived from liberalism.
-
Political science education is not usually considered useful in the schools I've been to. Several people tried to warn me off when I took it.
Also, the grassroots movements are essentially heavily endorsed advertisement campaigns, aimed at sheep (who come in all types of educations).
Also, I must say, as someone who has a lot of socialist type beliefs, I often feel uncomfortable entering political discussions; there seems to be a lot of hatred for anything remotely more balanced.
-
who the hell looks at america and doesn't see a lot of leftists? o.0
our left is very much the rest of the worlds middle ground. even obama is a couple lines into the right side of the political compass.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
-
who the hell looks at america and doesn't see a lot of leftists? o.0
All of us who don't live in it.
The article is a very insightful look at the complete lunacy of the American fiscal-political environment (at least at the federal level). In no other country do you see the grassroots screaming in favour of financial policy that clearly favours the wealthy to their detriment. The bizarre thing is the phenomenon applies equally to the educated and the uneducated.
This latest round of tax cut extensions is a perfect example. The Republicans, back traditionally by the very wealthy but also by conservative lower-middle class voters, were overwhelmingly in favour of extending tax cuts to the wealthy... which isn't surprising. What is surprising is the complete lack of criticism of this policy by 2/3 of the people who elected them and won't benefit from said cuts, but will actually receive financial harm because of them.
A large portion of the problem is that ordinary Americans, thanks to polarized politics, no longer understand that liberal != Communist. I'd go so far as to say that the vast majority of Republicans have absolutely no idea that Reagan and Bush1's policies are actually derived from liberalism.
There's that often told story/joke (it's very likely made up) about Soviet era politicians touring around the United States and seeing the fervent patriotism and support for the political elite in America. One of the politicians turned to one of the Americans and said "In my country we have to kill people to get this kind of loyalty."
For some reason everything said here reminds me of that joke.
-
When the rich abandoned america (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/19/when_the_rich_abandoned_america_and_what_that_has_to_do_with_defense)
-
Not really my area, I'll grant, especially since it's a foreign country, but I've always suspected a big chunk of the reason for the strong right wing in America is a generational hangover from the cold war. People wanted to distinguish themselves from the commies, and propaganda helped push this along. They're communists, they're bad, so we'll be a market economy, and we'll be good. Anyone who tries to mess with that is a commie, and therefore bad.
And there are people that still think that way...
-
How do you define lefties? Flaming whacko die for the cause ones or the more quiet politically savvy ones who would see this country buried under crushing tax rates to pay for programs we cannot possibly afford while they provide every little nit picky group a way out if you meet these conditions or those circumstances and who see the American people not as a quilt of beautiful, vibrant individuals who have come here to seek a better life, but a voting blocks to be pandered to so they get to keep playing their pointless political games.
Umm, we have all we need of the second one thanks.
-
the more quiet politically savvy ones who would see this country buried under crushing tax rates to pay for programs we cannot possibly afford
First off, these taxes are for programs that greatly benefit ALL of us, not like the conservatives who pass tax cuts for the wealthy alone (which you would never get)
And guess what, a hell of a lot more republican presidents increase the dept percentage than democrat presidents do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms Take a look at that chart
while they provide every little nit picky group a way out if you meet these conditions or those circumstances and who see the American people not as a quilt of beautiful, vibrant individuals who have come here to seek a better life, but a voting blocks to be pandered to so they get to keep playing their pointless political games.
That's politics in general, stop trying to act like the conservatives are god's white knights to us who have our best interests in mind and are in no way bad, because they aren't. Far from it. If you'd stop watching Fox News and actually observe the real world as I have you may be able to see that.
How do you define lefties? Flaming whacko die for the cause ones
This is so idiotic I'm not going to try explaining to you that there are a whole lot of right wing members like this too.
-
ugh, liberatored
-
I see no reason why we should lock a promising thread just because the exact sort of person the article talked about actually posted. :p
Just don't reply to Liberator. Seriously, anyone who does is getting kicked out of Gen Disc!. It's pretty obvious he has exactly the kind of programming that the article mentions running around in his head on a loop. You could replace his entire political view with some simple Macros. :p So let's simply write him off as a lost cause and keep talking to those who might actually have a sensible reason why they vote for the same people who have been screwing them for years.
Back on topic guys.
-
you know posts like "LOL STOOPID REPUBLICANS!" don't do anything but piss us off further and make it more likely you get rants like liberator's. and locking threads because someone posts a dissenting opinion is just plain childish.
-
you know posts like "LOL STOOPID REPUBLICANS!" don't do anything but piss us off further and make it more likely you get rants like liberator's. and locking threads because someone posts a dissenting opinion is just plain childish.
So you're saying that Liberator's views are common to all Republicans?
Because I doubt it, and I don't think that you were trying to say that.
The fact is, the problem I have with the Republican party is that some factions, I agree with a lot (the libertarian sections for instance), some are actually fiscal conservatives (they are rare, but do exist), and then there are the ones who want a theocracy in everything but name.
The stupid part is that most of these factions are utterly incompatible, but they protect each other, in the name of the Republican party. It doesn't make any sense.
It's like the Anarchists and Monarchists got together and formed a party. Just to get more power.
-
American Leftie checking in.
-
Screw "Leftie" or "Rightie," I just call myself a "Pragmatist." If a policy seems sensible and isn't completely stupid, I'm usually on-board.
-
Screw "Leftie" or "Rightie," I just call myself a "Pragmatist." If a policy seems sensible and isn't completely stupid, I'm usually on-board.
"Leftie" or "rightie" is usually defined by WHAT policies you think are sensible.
-
Screw "Leftie" or "Rightie," I just call myself a "Pragmatist." If a policy seems sensible and isn't completely stupid, I'm usually on-board.
"Leftie" or "rightie" is usually defined by WHAT policies you think are sensible.
The problem lies in the fact that people start identifying themselves with a specific group. In turn this leads to them accepting policies they might have otherwise disagreed with, or put more thought into, merely because their "team" came up with it. This is why I have a strong distaste for any form of long-term political parties.
-
I would generally agree, but I'm talking much more in terms of political science terms and much less about specific parties:
The stupid part is that most of these factions are utterly incompatible, but they protect each other, in the name of the Republican party. It doesn't make any sense.
It's like the Anarchists and Monarchists got together and formed a party. Just to get more power.
Is my general feeling on most parties, but the Republican party takes it to rather an extreme.
-
you know posts like "LOL STOOPID REPUBLICANS!" don't do anything but piss us off further and make it more likely you get rants like liberator's. and locking threads because someone posts a dissenting opinion is just plain childish.
Except no one is saying "LOL STOOPID REPUBLICANS!" The republicans party itself is actually quite clever. They've decided that they don't care about ****ing over the working and lower middle class in order to make more money for themselves. What is amazing is that they've managed to get those exact same people to agree that it's a very good idea.
Now Liberator is a completely different kettle of fish. When it comes to politics, he's basically like a dog who has figured out how to speak in English instead of barking. That doesn't mean he can actually express anything like a rational answer when pressed on any subject. Time and time again he has posted in this ilk and when asked to defend his position he's simply moved on to the next ill-founded assertion. I'd have just as much of a problem with him if he was a Democrat.
Now if you want to explain a different reason why poor people continue to argue against tax increases that wouldn't affect them you're more than welcome to do so. Hell, for that matter if Liberator wants to make a well reasoned argument rather than spewing rhetoric he's more than welcome to do so. What he can't do is post the sort of crap he posted earlier on.
-
you know posts like "LOL STOOPID REPUBLICANS!" don't do anything but piss us off further and make it more likely you get rants like liberator's. and locking threads because someone posts a dissenting opinion is just plain childish.
I agree. This thread wasn't locked because someone posted a dissenting opinion, it was locked because Liberator posted about politics in it. That is an event which has a history of leading to terrible, stupid threads.
Nemesis' threads have gotten locked for the same reasons and he's not a Republican or conservative.
It was the opposite of childish. In fact I wouldn't mind an apology.
-
I love the Beck-derived insult of "leftist"
Makes it so much easier to call me a communist. see what you did there with the -ist? classy and subtle.
-
I agree. This thread wasn't locked because someone posted a dissenting opinion, it was locked because Liberator posted about politics in it. That is an event which has a history of leading to terrible, stupid threads.
Nemesis' threads have gotten locked for the same reasons and he's not a Republican or conservative.
It was the opposite of childish. In fact I wouldn't mind an apology.
Which is why I took took the rare step of over-ruling a moderator and reopened it. As an admin I can actually tell people not to respond to the troll (intentional or otherwise) and actually enforce it.
I can fully understand why a moderator might lock it. Although I might be tempted to split lock in your position. We shouldn't give Liberator the ability to censor any thread with an opinion he doesn't like after all. :p
-
I love the Beck-derived insult of "leftist"
Makes it so much easier to call me a communist. see what you did there with the -ist? classy and subtle.
As I have to keep reminding my conservative friends down here in the states, communism and socialism are leftist ideologies, but not all leftist ideologies are socialism and communism.
I find it absolutely ironic though that Beck would consistently go on tirades against liberals here and still himself unwittingly support known communist ideas.
-
I find it absolutely ironic though that Beck would consistently go on tirades against liberals here and still himself unwittingly support known communist ideas.
It's not all that ironic. Beck is in the business of making money. He doesn't really care how. The more he rants, the more he rakes in. So long as his rant is at least partially coherent (or coherent to the Fox News crowd), it doesn't matter what he says - the people who religiously follow him (if you'll pardon the allusion) don't appear to be have the education or critical thinking ability to figure out that he ideologically makes no sense.
-
Screw "Leftie" or "Rightie," I just call myself a "Pragmatist." If a policy seems sensible and isn't completely stupid, I'm usually on-board.
"Leftie" or "rightie" is usually defined by WHAT policies you think are sensible.
The problem lies in the fact that people start identifying themselves with a specific group. In turn this leads to them accepting policies they might have otherwise disagreed with, or put more thought into, merely because their "team" came up with it. This is why I have a strong distaste for any form of long-term political parties.
Pretty much this exactly. Going by the general platforms of both parties, I'm somewhere smack-dab in the middle of them. I like the general idea of fiscal conservatism, but I think that having some degree of national healthcare system makes a lot of sense too. There are one or two areas of social conservatism I'm on board with, but most of the others I either don't give a fig about either way or consider bat**** insane. I'm all for mitigating climate change, too. Since I can't pigeonhole myself into either of the loosely-defined coalitions we call "parties," I just stick with "Pragmatist" and be done with it. :p
-
Most Americans cannot reliably place themselves or the parties on a left/right spectrum along with their various positions. In any given election the voters generally have trouble doing the same thing with the candidates.
The electorate is (probably) a lot less polarized than you'd believe.
-
Most Americans cannot reliably place themselves or the parties on a left/right spectrum along with their various positions. In any given election the voters generally have trouble doing the same thing with the candidates.
That's a welcome feature in a healthy democracy. Perfectly predictable elections are no real elections. That means that either party must botcher up very seriously to make elections sensible again.
-
Most Americans cannot reliably place themselves or the parties on a left/right spectrum along with their various positions. In any given election the voters generally have trouble doing the same thing with the candidates.
That's a welcome feature in a healthy democracy. Perfectly predictable elections are no real elections. That means that either party must botcher up very seriously to make elections sensible again.
wat
Elections are still completely predictable. In fact political scientists generally call them months in advance. All that you really need to have is data about the economy and wartime/peacetime status. Campaigns don't matter mch.
And it's a very unwelcome feature that voters don't know what the candidates are advocating or what they believe in.
-
(or coherent to the Fox News crowd)
That's quite a big crowd you're writing about.
In January 2010, Public Policy Polling reported that Fox News was the most trusted television news channel in the country with 49% of respondents stating they trust Fox News.[38][39] Fox also scored the lowest level of distrust with only 37%, and was the only channel to score a net positive in that regard, with a +12%. CNN scored second in the poll with 39% of those polled stating that they trusted the news channel, and 41% stating distrust, a -2% net score.[40]
And about the topic- what sucks in the US is that there's only 2 big parties. That doesn't give much of a choice on which one to vote for.
-
That's quite a big crowd you're writing about.
Fox might have a lot of viewers, but that doesn't mean those viewers are smart.
In fact, I recall a study that came out just this month that says the average Fox News viewer is actually less politically-educated than their MSNBC counterparts.
-
And about the topic- what sucks in the US is that there's only 2 big parties. That doesn't give much of a choice on which one to vote for.
We have it worse. Poland has a lot of parties, but since the fall of communism only tne names changed. Everything is the same. The Solidarity's (Lech Walesa's) ideals were wasted to some mafia-like "politicians"... The only thing that has changes since the "deastructon" of communism is the name of a party.
You're pretty lucky tkat you have only two. At least you know who is who. A lot of our society listen to what a priest (If you vote for Kwasniewski you commit a sin!!!) is saying.
The Catholic Church in Poland doesn't pay taxes, customs etc... But every Polish citizen have to pay a church tax. Google for the "return of the Catholics' Church Property"... At least you're not the European Catholic Iran...
Edit:
Sorry 4 my English... I'm not a native speaker.
Edit2:
One of our most prominent church figures, who made the vovs of poverty is driving a Maybach and has a private university...
-
The Catholic Church in Poland doesn't pay taxes, customs etc... But every Polish citizen have to pay a church tax. Google for the "return of the Catholics' Church Property"... At least you're not the European Catholic Iran...
It's a little different here in Denmark, but not much. We have Church Tax, too. There is, however, no standardized way of getting out of it. Once you're baptised, you're automatically signed up to pay what should be a Church Tax at around 0.84% of your yearly income, paying every month. So, there's a Danish website that has a standardized form that you can just fill out and send to them. That should get the bloodsuckers permanently off my back, so I gotta get that done.
-
Nemesis you have the Church Tax. We have to pay it due to out "traditiojnal" way of life... I really admire what the John Paul II did to the world, but also I hate the decisions our goverment made.... Like the Pope supported Augusto Pinochet as he was " fighting the communism". We all know what the "Death Squadrons" did. The same as Pius XII did. The first man that congratulated Hitler his becoming of a Fuhrer.
About the tax. Poland is a 98% Catholic country. Most of these people are paying the Church Tax just because they were christened. If you'tr born here, you get christened at the age of a month-two. Just because of a tradition. And later? I signed out. Everyone of my neighbours calles me a "heretic" "satanist" etc...
Check which counry was the most tolerant int let's say XVI century... Where the Protestants, JWeish, Muslims took shelter during the Tomás de Torquemada's "Holy War" ?
The democracy is what will destroy our world. Look at your country... Do any of the goverments fullfill the nations' desires? Democracy was good. Back in Greece. If any1 iss intrested in ancient histiry, will know what I mean.
And again, sorry for my English. I'm from Poland.
Edit:
I'll definitely get banned....
-
Nah, not banned. You should have seen some of the arguments that don't get people banned in here.
-
The democracy is what will destroy our world. Look at your country... Do any of the goverments fullfill the nations' desires?
On this I will completely and totally agree. Unfortunately, Democracy is also the only hope we have of reversing the trend. We need harsh term limits and limits on a politicians ability to be involved in policy decisions other than the same single vote we all get. What I mean is NO 6 or 7 figure jobs in the Capital to take your old cronies to a steak dinner or 10,000 dollar a hole golf game.
NO MORE GAMING THE GODDAMN SYSTEM WHILE THE WORLD ****ING BURNS!
-
The democracy is what will destroy our world. Look at your country... Do any of the goverments fullfill the nations' desires? Democracy was good. Back in Greece. If any1 iss intrested in ancient histiry, will know what I mean.
It is not enough to suggest what does not work, an alternative must be suggested. Perhaps Fascism?
-
Someone said that democracy is not an ideal system... But we don't have anything better...
-
Benevolent dictatorship!
Or maybe constitutional monarchy.
-
Benevolent dictatorship!
Who would keep the dictator benevolent?
Or maybe constitutional monarchy.
Constitutional monarchies tend to result in parliamentary democracies, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Sweden. All of those are all examples of Constitutional Monarchies.
-
I always seem to forget at least half of the European countries that still have monarchies, so I'm continually surprised when I see a random news article about the queen of Sweden or something. :p
-
Benevolent dictatorship!
Who would keep the dictator benevolent?
The Author! because the only time that ever works for very long is in a work of fiction. Specifically, the kind of fiction written by dictators. And involving Unicorns and Kittens. And Rainbows.
Back towards the starting topic, I'd venture that the dearth of lefties and/or dearth of political sanity and/or dearth of doubleplusgood politicians in the US can be traced directly to the supreme court's 1886 ruling in 'Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood),' which, well, indirectly enabled a whole lot of very rich people to completely evade personal responsibility for their actions. That then led to things like lobbying, communications monopolies, thalidomide babies, and top 40 radio stations. (all of which are equally horrible and deserve to be listed together. Because I said so.)
-
It is not enough to suggest what does not work, an alternative must be suggested. Perhaps Fascism?
GTVA!
There will be a Great War :P soon... as we're slowly running out of oil... We fortunately won't live long enough 2 witness it, but our kids or grandchildren will...
-
I am convinced that the reason there are so many people in the US who are so far skewed right and authoritarian is that we are a nation of useless facts, but not real information. Student have learned to copy information verbatim without actually understanding it, and most students probably don't even have any political science background at all.
I'm quite certain that if you asked EVERY American in the US what system of government Nazi Germany had, the majority would say "Socialism" instead of "Fascism."
If you asked them what system of government the UK, the progenitor of our nation and historically one of our greatest allies, most would be able to say "Democracy" few would be able to say "Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy" nor would most they know what either of those terms meant.
And if you asked what a 'theocracy' was, well actually I really want to find out.
The horrifying thing is that the longer this goes on, the more relevant it is to everyday life, because the worse our government fails.
What has successfully been sold to many:
Evil ~ Hitler ~ Nazi ~ Socialism ~ Socialized programs
-
Most Americans cannot reliably place themselves or the parties on a left/right spectrum along with their various positions. In any given election the voters generally have trouble doing the same thing with the candidates.
That's a welcome feature in a healthy democracy. Perfectly predictable elections are no real elections. That means that either party must botcher up very seriously to make elections sensible again.
wat
Elections are still completely predictable. In fact political scientists generally call them months in advance. All that you really need to have is data about the economy and wartime/peacetime status. Campaigns don't matter mch.
And it's a very unwelcome feature that voters don't know what the candidates are advocating or what they believe in.
So basically, you'd like to live in a country where all elections are fixed. Since everyone's party affiliations are unchangeable (in your hypothetical idealistic society), it doesn't matter what kind of two candidates run. You can pick a peanut farmer to run for your party - if your party has the largest voter base, he'll win. He can say whatever he wishes on TV, he can have any kind of incompetent campaign staff, it would account for nothing. In this case, the elections wouldn't be predictable by experts months in advance, but a decade in advance by laypersons too. That's unwelcome. If your country's elections are predictable, and one party is 100% to win everywhere (White House, Congress, mayors, governors, etc) that would practically establish a one-party rule. You wouldn't like that, do you?
It's welcome, in my view, that there's always a second/third/fourth party in opposition. If the incumbent party does something very stupid, or their candidate is clearly incompetent, people must be aware that there is more than one party in the country. If there were no swing states, anyone could get into the White House simply based on party affiliation.
About campaigns: If they didn't matter at all, then how come your mailbox gets overwhelmed with junkmail during elections? Then how come the candidates are bombarding the nation with all sorts of ads - TV, printed, Internet? Do you think that a candidate who airs three different ads twenty times altogether on eight different TV channels during a six-month campaign is gonna win? Uncertain voters must be fought for. They must be convinced that x party's program is better than y party's or at least that x party's candidate is better than y party's.
It seems to me that you'd like to see a utopian society where everyone is completely aware of every bit of each party's political view, can predict how well x candidate will fare in the White House perfectly well.
-
So basically, you'd like to live in a country where all elections are fixed. Since everyone's party affiliations are unchangeable (in your hypothetical idealistic society), it doesn't matter what kind of two candidates run. You can pick a peanut farmer to run for your party - if your party has the largest voter base, he'll win. He can say whatever he wishes on TV, he can have any kind of incompetent campaign staff, it would account for nothing. In this case, the elections wouldn't be predictable by experts months in advance, but a decade in advance by laypersons too. That's unwelcome. If your country's elections are predictable, and one party is 100% to win everywhere (White House, Congress, mayors, governors, etc) that would practically establish a one-party rule. You wouldn't like that, do you?
The country is hardly idealistic or hypothetical since he's talking about the US elections.
-
Back towards the starting topic, I'd venture that the dearth of lefties and/or dearth of political sanity and/or dearth of doubleplusgood politicians in the US can be traced directly to the supreme court's 1886 ruling in 'Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood),' which, well, indirectly enabled a whole lot of very rich people to completely evade personal responsibility for their actions. That then led to things like lobbying, communications monopolies, thalidomide babies, and top 40 radio stations. (all of which are equally horrible and deserve to be listed together. Because I said so.)
Sometimes precedential law sucks I guess.
PS- And Kwasniewski was president for 10 years.
-
So basically, you'd like to live in a country where all elections are fixed. Since everyone's party affiliations are unchangeable (in your hypothetical idealistic society), it doesn't matter what kind of two candidates run. You can pick a peanut farmer to run for your party - if your party has the largest voter base, he'll win. He can say whatever he wishes on TV, he can have any kind of incompetent campaign staff, it would account for nothing. In this case, the elections wouldn't be predictable by experts months in advance, but a decade in advance by laypersons too. That's unwelcome. If your country's elections are predictable, and one party is 100% to win everywhere (White House, Congress, mayors, governors, etc) that would practically establish a one-party rule. You wouldn't like that, do you?
The country is hardly idealistic or hypothetical since he's talking about the US elections.
Tell that to the Floridans.
-
So basically, you'd like to live in a country where all elections are fixed. Since everyone's party affiliations are unchangeable (in your hypothetical idealistic society), it doesn't matter what kind of two candidates run. You can pick a peanut farmer to run for your party - if your party has the largest voter base, he'll win. He can say whatever he wishes on TV, he can have any kind of incompetent campaign staff, it would account for nothing. In this case, the elections wouldn't be predictable by experts months in advance, but a decade in advance by laypersons too. That's unwelcome. If your country's elections are predictable, and one party is 100% to win everywhere (White House, Congress, mayors, governors, etc) that would practically establish a one-party rule. You wouldn't like that, do you?
1. Just because a result is predictable doesn't make it fixed. Modern polling techniques grant us a pretty good safety margin when applied correctly.
2. I have no idea what you mean by one-party rule, since that has nothing to do with predictable elections.
3. Running a campaign influences the voters (up to a certain point) and that influences the polling data which...
Tell you what, imagine you live in a community with the same political ideas you have, and that you are running an election for mayor or something. And that Hitler decides to run against you (Yay for semi-Godwin!) and somehow the voters don't really like him (maybe it was the kill all the jews joke at the beginning of the campaign). Is that election predictable or not?
-
If a given party advocates Hitler to run for a position, something's wrong there. How "big" is this community we're competing for? What country, what economic status? If you've brought up Hitler: Even in poverty-struck Germany, he won by a small margin. He didn't win the majority of seats in Parliament, just the elections. He had to take further actions (the burning of the Reichstag, blaming communists, a long history of Goebbelsian rhetorics, anti-Jewish sentiments etc) to dissolve Parliament and establish a dictatorship.
Fortunately, in a US context, nothing like that is at all possible to happen. Your democracy works a lot better than in most parts of the world. I guess you'd have to live in an actual dictatorship for a long time, then return to your "failed" democracy to realize it.
-
Most Americans cannot reliably place themselves or the parties on a left/right spectrum along with their various positions. In any given election the voters generally have trouble doing the same thing with the candidates.
That's a welcome feature in a healthy democracy. Perfectly predictable elections are no real elections. That means that either party must botcher up very seriously to make elections sensible again.
wat
Elections are still completely predictable. In fact political scientists generally call them months in advance. All that you really need to have is data about the economy and wartime/peacetime status. Campaigns don't matter mch.
And it's a very unwelcome feature that voters don't know what the candidates are advocating or what they believe in.
So basically, you'd like to live in a country where all elections are fixed. Since everyone's party affiliations are unchangeable (in your hypothetical idealistic society), it doesn't matter what kind of two candidates run. You can pick a peanut farmer to run for your party - if your party has the largest voter base, he'll win. He can say whatever he wishes on TV, he can have any kind of incompetent campaign staff, it would account for nothing.
Jesus **** no, this has nothing to do with my personal preference, this is how things are right now. In most cases campaigns and candidates do not matter. (I work in a political science lab at MIT right now.)
The only way the candidate could seriously **** things up is by causing some kind of major scandal. Otherwise it doesn't really matter. And party affiliations aren't unchangeable, per se, but they tend to be pretty sticky.
In this case, the elections wouldn't be predictable by experts months in advance, but a decade in advance by laypersons too. That's unwelcome. If your country's elections are predictable, and one party is 100% to win everywhere (White House, Congress, mayors, governors, etc) that would practically establish a one-party rule. You wouldn't like that, do you?
I have no idea where this is coming from. Elections are generally predictable months but not years in advance.
It's welcome, in my view, that there's always a second/third/fourth party in opposition. If the incumbent party does something very stupid, or their candidate is clearly incompetent, people must be aware that there is more than one party in the country. If there were no swing states, anyone could get into the White House simply based on party affiliation.
I've never said anything to disagree.
About campaigns: If they didn't matter at all, then how come your mailbox gets overwhelmed with junkmail during elections? Then how come the candidates are bombarding the nation with all sorts of ads - TV, printed, Internet? Do you think that a candidate who airs three different ads twenty times altogether on eight different TV channels during a six-month campaign is gonna win? Uncertain voters must be fought for. They must be convinced that x party's program is better than y party's or at least that x party's candidate is better than y party's.
There are two different views on this. One is that it's all a giant illusion, and people simply do it because they think it's necessary. The other is that campaigns generally cancel each other out.
It seems to me that you'd like to see a utopian society where everyone is completely aware of every bit of each party's political view, can predict how well x candidate will fare in the White House perfectly well.
I haven't said anything about my own personal preferences.
-
If a given party advocates Hitler to run for a position, something's wrong there. How "big" is this community we're competing for? What country, what economic status? If you've brought up Hitler: Even in poverty-struck Germany, he won by a small margin. He didn't win the majority of seats in Parliament, just the elections. He had to take further actions (the burning of the Reichstag, blaming communists, a long history of Goebbelsian rhetorics, anti-Jewish sentiments etc) to dissolve Parliament and establish a dictatorship.
Not that this has any connection with what I was proposing but, the community is of 10000 people who were born from cloning vats using your genetic material, followed by being brainwashed into thinking as you do (hey, crazy scenario asks for crazy measures). Oh, and everyone is filthy rich.
The example I am proposing is one that makes you say "Hitler can't win!", basically a predictable outcome.
From there we'll adjust Hitler's and your position and the communities characteristics ever so slightly until the scenario resembles, or becomes, the real world. When can we say it's not a predictable outcome? And why?
Oh, please note that Hitler here is not an attempt at ad-hominem. He's just a place holder for a candidate.
-
IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
-
IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
You fail democracy.
Forever.
Please turn in your voting priviledges now.
-
IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
You fail democracy.
Forever.
Please turn in your voting priviledges now.
What? Is it too much to ask that people choosing the most important offices in a country actually KNOW how a country works? Democracy works best when the people have some civic education and are aware of the ramifications of a politician's policies. I get so sick of seeing people getting elected purely on the waves of "COMMUNISM IS EVIL!"
Maybe if we'd had some educated voters back in 2000 and 2004 we could've spared the world 8 years of Bush...
-
Right. An exam for citizenship.
Simple question, what criteria should be used to define your ability to vote? What questions are you supposed to ask to determine whether or not someone understands the system? How do you determine whether someone really understands what's going on or just recaps what he remembers from whatever lessons in civics he got?
-
I'm not saying an exam for citizenship.
Here in the US we've got a Congressionally-funded civics education program that's available for a large majority of high school students in their final year. Making classes like that mandatory for graduation would be a good first step.
And maybe a couple of history or economics classes to help people determine the difference between communism, socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism, capitalism, fascism, et al. so that people don't blindly follow what a politician says. If we depend on political parties or mommy/daddy to teach kids about how politics works, we're never going to break the Cold War mindset here in the US.
I'm just tired of my comparatively-informed vote being overridden by some idiot who doesn't know the difference between the three branches of government and votes for a party just because daddy did. Unfortunately...there's a lot of people like that in this country. That's not a democracy--that's rule by the idiots.
-
Service guarantees citizenship!
-
I'm not saying an exam for citizenship.
Here in the US we've got a Congressionally-funded civics education program that's available for a large majority of high school students in their final year. Making classes like that mandatory for graduation would be a good first step.
And maybe a couple of history or economics classes to help people determine the difference between communism, socialism, social democracy, democratic socialism, capitalism, fascism, et al. so that people don't blindly follow what a politician says. If we depend on political parties or mommy/daddy to teach kids about how politics works, we're never going to break the Cold War mindset here in the US.
I'm just tired of my comparatively-informed vote being overridden by some idiot who doesn't know the difference between the three branches of government and votes for a party just because daddy did. Unfortunately...there's a lot of people like that in this country. That's not a democracy--that's rule by the idiots.
But that is different (and altogether more reasonable) from what Mobius was suggesting. To recap (in a non-stupid colour), he said:IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
-
Well, it wouldn't hurt if we made every person take the citizenship test like immigrants do...I'm willing to bet most Americans couldn't pass it.
If we expect that kind of knowledge out of people who weren't born here, can't we expect it out of the people who were?
-
But that is different (and altogether more reasonable) from what Mobius was suggesting. To recap (in a non-stupid colour), he said:
IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
No, it's not different. It's exactly what Nuclear1 is saying.
-
Actually I agree with Mobius. Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote for the same reason minors aren't allowed to.
ie. they're stupid
-
The problem with such restriction is that it'd harm minorities the most. Minority groups, who have less access to good education due to their low financial status, will be excluded.
-
Yeayeah i'm not being serious
-
The minimum knowledge to vote doesn't require an uber education. School, newspapers and some books would be well enough.
And those who don't know anything probably aren't even interested on voting.
-
And those who don't know anything probably aren't even interested on voting.
No, people who don't know jack **** about the world often hold extremely strong political views precisely because of their misconceptions. It's what makes them so funny to laugh at.
-
But that is different (and altogether more reasonable) from what Mobius was suggesting. To recap (in a non-stupid colour), he said:
IMHO, not all the people who have the right to vote should have it. I know it may seem weird, but I wish there were serious exams all citizens should pass if they want to vote.
No, it's not different. It's exactly what Nuclear1 is saying.
No, it's not. You said "People should pass an exam to be allowed to vote." Nuclear said "People should pass an exam on citizenship to be allowed to graduate from school." If you cannot see the difference between the two positions, you should not post in this thread.
-
The two things are connected, and I don't see anything wrong with it that could prevent me from posting here.
-
:)
-
ugh this thread is stupid
Any and all plans for selective disenfranchisement, no matter how well intended, always fail. The reason is that there are systemic biases which cause certain groups to be selectively disenfranchised. In the US, blacks would disproportionately lose the vote; so would Hispanics. They would then lose the ability to vote on policies that effect their welfare, causing a death spiral.
The_E is right. Universal suffrage is the only way to go.
-
That is a serious risk but I think it can be prevented. Just use accurate tests which don't make any cultural differences and the job is done.
-
How does culture come into the picture? Can you elaborate on what you mean?
-
That is a serious risk but I think it can be prevented. Just use accurate tests which don't make any cultural differences and the job is done.
Yeah, right. As if such a thing exists, or could exist.
-
How does culture come into the picture? Can you elaborate on what you mean?
"Cultural differences" in the sense of differences between separate ethnical groups.
-
I despair.
Mobius, in a democracy, excluding people from the vote should only be done as a very, VERY extreme measure. Anything else, and you create a situation where a sizable minority has no franchise, no involvement in the political process, and as a result, will be treated as second class.
That is something that should never, EVER, be allowed to happen.
-
How does culture come into the picture? Can you elaborate on what you mean?
"Cultural differences" in the sense of differences between separate ethnical groups.
It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with subpar schooling and living conditions.
-
The two things are connected, and I don't see anything wrong with it that could prevent me from posting here.
Not really.
We require people pass math, history, and science classes to graduate school anyway, why not require a couple of civics education classes as well?
I'm not saying people should be forbidden from voting if they don't pass these classes in school, but just that having such classes available the year most people become eligible to vote might make for a smarter electorate over time.
-
Hey gais, just FYI, but in Kansas at least you have to pass a Government or equivalent class in order to graduate. Can't vouch for anywhere else, and it hasn't really helped much here.
-
Is this "Government" class about political views or Congressional/presidential powers?
-
Is this "Government" class about political views or Congressional/presidential powers?
There shouldn't be a 'class' about political views, the concept is too open to abuse. The way a government works should be sufficient. Almost anything more than that risks turning into an indoctrination class, for all intents and purposes.
-
I despair.
Mobius, in a democracy, excluding people from the vote should only be done as a very, VERY extreme measure. Anything else, and you create a situation where a sizable minority has no franchise, no involvement in the political process, and as a result, will be treated as second class.
That is something that should never, EVER, be allowed to happen.
Explain me how minorities, in that scenario, would no longer matter.
-
I despair.
Mobius, in a democracy, excluding people from the vote should only be done as a very, VERY extreme measure. Anything else, and you create a situation where a sizable minority has no franchise, no involvement in the political process, and as a result, will be treated as second class.
That is something that should never, EVER, be allowed to happen.
Explain me how minorities, in that scenario, would no longer matter.
What? He's talking about disenfranchisement will create a sizable minority (note the singular there) that has no power to do anything, and will be treated as second class.
EDIT: Damned light blue color removed.
-
I despair.
Mobius, in a democracy, excluding people from the vote should only be done as a very, VERY extreme measure. Anything else, and you create a situation where a sizable minority has no franchise, no involvement in the political process, and as a result, will be treated as second class.
That is something that should never, EVER, be allowed to happen.
which is why republic > democracy
also damn you, I clicked this link thinking it was about a science article about left handed people.
-
What? He's talking about disenfranchisement will create a sizable minority (note the singular there) that has no power to do anything, and will be treated as second class.
EDIT: Damned light blue color removed.
Explain me how that would happen, then. The way I see it, it could help minorities if they're interested enough on their own rights.
-
What? He's talking about disenfranchisement will create a sizable minority (note the singular there) that has no power to do anything, and will be treated as second class.
EDIT: Damned light blue color removed.
Explain me how that would happen, then. The way I see it, it could help minorities if they're interested enough on their own rights.
because everyone gets a single vote and majority rules. If the majority votes for a law that makes the minority slaves, the minority has to go with it.
-
Doesn't that apply to democracy, too? Where's the difference between that and what me and Nuclear1 said?
-
Doesn't that apply to democracy, too? Where's the difference between that and what me and Nuclear1 said?
yes, it is common to all non-republic democracies.
-
because everyone gets a single vote and majority rules. If the majority votes for a law that makes the minority slaves, the minority has to go with it.
The Constitution forbids slavery.
-
because everyone gets a single vote and majority rules. If the majority votes for a law that makes the minority slaves, the minority has to go with it.
The Constitution forbids slavery.
A constitution is the defining characteristic of a republic, not a pure democracy.
-
What? He's talking about disenfranchisement will create a sizable minority (note the singular there) that has no power to do anything, and will be treated as second class.
EDIT: Damned light blue color removed.
Explain me how that would happen, then. The way I see it, it could help minorities if they're interested enough on their own rights.
Dissociate the word minorities from ethnicities. Now reapply it to people who can't vote. Watch the exact same thing happen as happened with ethnic minorities to their levels of education and standard of living. The only difference is that now the word "minority" would apply to lower-class/income households.
-
us government is a required class in most highschools in the us. somehow i managed to get through high school without taking it. of course knowing how your government works is not enough. you also need to know how political parties work, how to objectively evaluate candidates, etc. really i dont think any level of education or testing is going to make a difference in how people vote. democracy is the wrong type of government if you only want only the tiny fraction of the population who are intellectuals to decide who runs the government. besides leadership is not about smarts, its about balls.
-
By the way guys, you can just put Mobius on your forum ignore list until he stops posting in that font - I've had him and a few other users on ignore for a while now and it makes HLP a lot more enjoyable.
Put them on your ignore lists and you won't see their posts any more.
-
Why don't the admins just disable the [color] tags?
-
By the way guys, you can just put Mobius on your forum ignore list until he stops posting in that font - I've had him and a few other users on ignore for a while now and it makes HLP a lot more enjoyable.
Put them on your ignore lists and you won't see their posts any more.
But then how else can we correct him when he's wrong?
-
Why don't the admins just disable the [color] tags?
Cause some people aren't idiots and use them responsibly. For instance the only time I use them is when I've had to edit someone else's post (to remove a link or something) in which case I want to state exactly what I did and why in a way that can't be mistaken for the original users point of view.
As for the current subject of the debate. I actually agree with Mobius. It's all very well talking about disenfranchisement of minorities but the simple fact is that is exactly what is happening now. People with poor knowledge of politics are prevented from actually expressing a sensible view on the subject because they are easily influenced.
And I'm not having a go at just Republicans here. There were a whole bunch of incredibly stupid reasons people voted for Obama too.
-
I agree with the statements in the above post.
-
By the way guys, you can just put Mobius on your forum ignore list until he stops posting in that font - I've had him and a few other users on ignore for a while now and it makes HLP a lot more enjoyable.
Put them on your ignore lists and you won't see their posts any more.
That's so nice. Especially the part about HLP being more enjoyable.
-
For two summers, I've been at something akin to a Model UN except instead of the UN, it's the US. Although most of the city at least should be at least somewhat open-minded, remember that there are folks in the rurals where their Presidential opdium is a noose hung for Obama and the grandparents are members of Nazis and KKK. I'm not kidding.
Of course, that's an extreme case. Still, there is a lot of rural area that only votes for Republicans because they're seemingly conservative and anti-socialist.
-
For two summers, I've been at something akin to a Model UN except instead of the UN, it's the US. Although most of the city at least should be at least somewhat open-minded, remember that there are folks in the rurals where their Presidential opdium is a noose hung for Obama and the grandparents are members of Nazis and KKK. I'm not kidding.
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
-
For two summers, I've been at something akin to a Model UN except instead of the UN, it's the US. Although most of the city at least should be at least somewhat open-minded, remember that there are folks in the rurals where their Presidential opdium is a noose hung for Obama and the grandparents are members of Nazis and KKK. I'm not kidding.
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
More than 1 in a million people have ancestors who were KKK. I know for a fact that I have an ancestor who was a slave trader for instance.
Also, conservatism not widthstanding, there are some seriously racist people, some very dangerous people, in certain rural areas. There are more than 400 of them.
-
For two summers, I've been at something akin to a Model UN except instead of the UN, it's the US. Although most of the city at least should be at least somewhat open-minded, remember that there are folks in the rurals where their Presidential opdium is a noose hung for Obama and the grandparents are members of Nazis and KKK. I'm not kidding.
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
not nearly as rare as you think
-
In Colorado we had a demonstration by the KKK that included more members at once then Liberator's statistics say live in the United States.
-
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
Explain where you got those figures from or get banned from Gen Disc.
I've warned you about **** and run posting before on this very thread. You're either going to defend your opinion or find yourself unable to continue making them here.
-
For two summers, I've been at something akin to a Model UN except instead of the UN, it's the US. Although most of the city at least should be at least somewhat open-minded, remember that there are folks in the rurals where their Presidential opdium is a noose hung for Obama and the grandparents are members of Nazis and KKK. I'm not kidding.
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
Dude, have you BEEN to a Tea Party rally or a Second Amendment rally in the past two years?!
-
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
Explain where you got those figures from or get banned from Gen Disc.
Thank you, kara. I was just going to call him out on lack of source.
-
He didn't even bother to do basic math on the population of the US before pulling those figures out of his ass.
-
the extreme right likes to call the left hippies, tree huggers and communists
the extreme left likes to call the right racists, homophobes and nazis
i call both extremes douchebags, assholes, and ****s
extremism is bad. we have seen what happens when extremists win absolute power over a government, you get rulers like hitler and stalin calling the shots. of course there will always be extremists. and the cool thing about america is that we let our extremists fight and they essentially cancel each other out. though its sad that the media often focuses on the extremes and gives you a vary narrow picture of the rest of politics.
-
Meanwhile the middle gets away with murder cause everyone is too busy with the floorshow to notice they aren't even getting bread and circuses.
-
Meanwhile the middle gets away with murder cause everyone is too busy with the floorshow to notice they aren't even getting bread and circuses.
Or the help they deserve to get after some extremists blew up a few towers.
-
Meanwhile the berserk crazy zealots gets away with murder cause everyone is too busy with the floorshow to notice they aren't even getting bread and circuses.
There I fixed it for you. The middle by definition doesn't care.
As a side note, I don't like not being able to change the color of text any more and are we gonna get the old theme back?
-
man maybe those threads right at the top of the announcements forum could tell you!
and yeah, of course moderates by definition don't care, because 'moderate' means 'don't pay attention and have no strong feelings' right because only extremists have feelings whereas the vast portion of the country that identifies as independent/moderate has no
wait
everything you say is wrong or a downright evil lie like 'the middle by definition doesn't care'
maybe it would be good if this country followed the policies of the moderates that make up most of its population because it's some kind of 'dem ok rass ee'
-
extremists will always be a minority and will always exist. but for some reason they are the one that everyone listens to, they get all the camera time. their policies are more interesting than the middle ground, because lets face it, sanity is boring.
-
I'll tell you right now that this is very rare. Certainly less than 1/1,000,000 and likley 1/10,000,000. This is a veiled attempt to label conservatism as being related to Nazism and the Klan.
Explain where you got those figures from or get banned from Gen Disc.
I've warned you about **** and run posting before on this very thread. You're either going to defend your opinion or find yourself unable to continue making them here.
oh and are we going to follow up on this ;7
-
The middle are sheep. They will follow whoever has the louder voice and stronger opinion. Validity of argument or logical thought processes seldom have any bearing sadly. If it did, we'd have a small(relatively), non-invasive government who handles foreign affairs, providing a basic education and providing an up to date infrastructure so industry and businesses want to come here and give us they're money and jobs.
Of course if wishes were real, I'd have a wizard tower for a house, dragons in the sky and people would get along better because they don't take things too seriously, sometimes and apple is an apple, an orange is an orange and bad people need to be squashed because they're bad not pandered too because it might make you feel bad.
-
Validity of argument or logical thought processes seldom have any bearing sadly
story of your life
is he banned from gendisc yet
-
KARAJ, YOU PROMISED.
OUR LEADERSHIP HAS BETRAYED US! ELECTION PROMISES UNFULFILLED! OTHER VAGUELY POLITICAL CALLS HERE!
Stop flinging your poo and running for the exit, Lib.
-
The middle are sheep. They will follow whoever has the louder voice and stronger opinion. Validity of argument or logical thought processes seldom have any bearing sadly. If it did, we'd have a small(relatively), non-invasive government who handles foreign affairs, providing a basic education and providing an up to date infrastructure so industry and businesses want to come here and give us they're money and jobs.
Of course if wishes were real, I'd have a wizard tower for a house, dragons in the sky and people would get along better because they don't take things too seriously, sometimes and apple is an apple, an orange is an orange and bad people need to be squashed because they're bad not pandered too because it might make you feel bad.
who's the bigger sheep? the sheep that votes in favor of a particular political party, or the sheep that votes for whatever politician they think will do a good job. your a sheep either way. i personally vote based on how likely the candidate is to start a nuclear war. of course if there was a scotched earth party id probably be a member.
-
of course if there was a scotched earth party id probably be a member.
SNP?
-
I'm all for a scorched earth, more for me! :D
-
The middle are sheep. They will follow whoever has the louder voice and stronger opinion. Validity of argument or logical thought processes seldom have any bearing sadly. If it did, we'd have a small(relatively), non-invasive government who handles foreign affairs, providing a basic education and providing an up to date infrastructure so industry and businesses want to come here and give us they're money and jobs.
Hmm... doesn't it make just as much sense to say that if the middle weren't "sheep" you'd finally have the kinds of socialized health-care and government supported education and welfare programs that most of the rest of the civilized world take for granted?
I hate to dogpile, I just want to see if you concede that it's even a possibility. :p
-
The middle are sheep. They will follow whoever has the louder voice and stronger opinion.
Extremists are sheep too.
Just louder sheep.
-
So...
I want to reveal some info about myself that has just come to light and offer an apology.
I'm a moron.
That's not quite right, moron's aren't responsible for their stupidity.
I am an idiot.
A modestly educated idiot who like poking ant mounds with sticks and firecrackers. Sometimes I will say things I don't necessarily mean to say the way I say them and for that I am sorry.
-
Too little. Too late.
Permaban from Gen Disc.
-
weirdly enough for all the rage liberator induces i still feel compassion for him as a human being and as a result I am modestly sorry/filled with feelings of regret and remorse
-
permaban? :<
the responses to liberator's posts are always so funny and informative, though
-
While that is true, it's rare that the responses are actually on topic. This topic is a great example. I really was hoping to hear from one of the Republicans why they continue to vote for a party that they must know intends to dick them over in favour of people who are already rich.
That would have been far more informative than anything I've heard in response to Liberator and might have actually sparked a discussion.
-
frankly the persistent and most frustrating problem is that there are never any responses to the responses to liberator's posts
-
Often people vote for the politician rather than the party. I suspect maybe many Republicans win by seeming better to the population.
-
Often people vote for the politician rather than the party. I suspect maybe many Republicans win by seeming better to the population.
Indeed? I was under the impression that it was the other way around.
-
i'd have to look at the data in my lab but I believe that party loyalty is very strong, so i suspect topace may be correct
-
Honestly, I suspect he's correct to. I just don't like thinking about the alternative explanation: You can convince people of almost everything.
-
my main reason for not voting for obama was that his campaign promises seemed generic as if he was reading them from a textbook. mccain seemed way more interesting, had way more experience. ive always ranted about how palin got bashed so badly in the lower 48, everyone in alaska thought she was awesome, and frankly i didnt mind having a vp who would think of alaska as a state and not just a reserve gas tank. as for biden i just hated him and his pro media industry stance. frankly id rather have an extreme right vp than a media tyrant. i must point out that i am not a member of the republican party, i merely vote republican most of the time. sometimes they do something i dont like.
-
I don't think it matters who we vote for anymore. The dollar is sinking, and not too long into the future it may implode entirely into wonderful hyperinflation if this (http://mcalvanyweeklycommentary.com/ica2010-1215-mp3/) is accurate. Buckle up folks, next year should be very interesting.
-
frankly the persistent and most frustrating problem is that there are never any responses to the responses to liberator's posts
Which is why he was banned.
-
i think a big problem for the republicans is that the trickledown effect (a core principal in the republican view on economics) is starting to break down. the problem is not really that it stopped. rather profits are being funneled into new industries in other countries and away from those that helped make the profits in the first place. youve seen this in the export of jobs, such as manufacturing and service industries. its much less risky for them to take jobs to places where there's little competition, regulation, and where less money goes a long way.
-
When did it ever work?
-
my main reason for not voting for obama was that his campaign promises seemed generic as if he was reading them from a textbook. mccain seemed way more interesting, had way more experience. ive always ranted about how palin got bashed so badly in the lower 48, everyone in alaska thought she was awesome, and frankly i didnt mind having a vp who would think of alaska as a state and not just a reserve gas tank. as for biden i just hated him and his pro media industry stance. frankly id rather have an extreme right vp than a media tyrant. i must point out that i am not a member of the republican party, i merely vote republican most of the time. sometimes they do something i dont like.
Aren't you a welfare queen, though? The people you vote for hate people like you. :P
-
my main reason for not voting for obama was that his campaign promises seemed generic as if he was reading them from a textbook. mccain seemed way more interesting, had way more experience. ive always ranted about how palin got bashed so badly in the lower 48, everyone in alaska thought she was awesome, and frankly i didnt mind having a vp who would think of alaska as a state and not just a reserve gas tank. as for biden i just hated him and his pro media industry stance. frankly id rather have an extreme right vp than a media tyrant. i must point out that i am not a member of the republican party, i merely vote republican most of the time. sometimes they do something i dont like.
Aren't you a welfare queen, though? The people you vote for hate people like you. :P
i dont care what they think of me or anyone else for that matter. il be able to leech free money from the governments regardless of who runs it. there is enough oscillation between republican and democrats to make sure of that.
-
When did it ever work?
When economy wasn't global and you could not gain money just by speculation. Now it still works, but you will have to travel 24 hours by plane to see where it did.
-
That would have been, what? Sometime in the 14th century?
-
Yo, guys, it's called monarchy.
The US has had a steep tax bracket for most of the last century. Before then you had robber barons.
-
That would have been, what? Sometime in the 14th century?
Lasted well into the 19th if the colonial economies are any judge.
-
Another problem with the trickling down thing is that the rich people controll the trickling. And they act in their own interests, and not in those of the poor ones. Which is why it does work, but only limitedly.