# Would you vote for a Third Party (USA)?



## Semichastny (Jun 19, 2012)

I have but a few simple questions to ask.

1. Do you support a Third party?
2. Why Do/Don't you support a third party?
3. What do you think Third Parties could do or change to increase their chances of success?
4. Are you aware of Third Parties in your Area?


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Jun 19, 2012)

1. No
2. Because that third party is either Libertarian or their political platform is ultimately based on one issue
3. They have no chance of success. They can't raise enough money the way the system works right now
4. Yes


----------



## Semichastny (Jun 19, 2012)

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> 2. Because that third party is either Libertarian or their political platform is ultimately based on one issue



What turns you off the Libertarian party? Which single issue Parties do you refer too, and why is having a single issue party a negative to you?



MrPepperoniNipples said:


> 3. They have no chance of success. They can't raise enough money the way the system works right now



Do you feel money is the sole or most important factor in political success?


----------



## AxeHappy (Jun 19, 2012)

Not an American but I believe that the ads (ie. Money) are indeed a HUGE factor in political success.

For some reason, people seem to believe the ads instead of actually looking shit up.

The party that won the last election in Canada didn't even post their platform until a week or two before voting day. Sure ran a lot of attacks ads though.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 19, 2012)

A vote for a third party is a vote _against_ whichever major party's policies they most closely resemble.


----------



## broj15 (Jun 19, 2012)

1. Yes. Registered Libertarian

2. I don't want to be a supporter of the constant bickering in congress done by the left and the right. I also feel that the left and right are both too polarized in thier beliefs on certain issues, making it damn near impossible to compromise and get stuff done. I also feel like the polocies created and enforced by democrats and republicans have played a huge part in putting us in the mess we're in now and I think it might be time for a change.

3. Start lying to increase thier approval ratings (exactly what most democrats and republicans do) and adopt the same rhetoric used by the democrats and republicans in order to secure the votes of those too stupid to make an informed decision.

4. Yes I am.


----------



## Semichastny (Jun 19, 2012)

broj15 said:


> 1. Yes. Registered Libertarian


Great, what drew you to the Libertarian party?



broj15 said:


> 3. Start lying to increase thier approval ratings and adopt the same rhetoric used by the democrats and republicans in order to secure the votes of those too stupid to make an informed decision.


All to true haha.

What do you think libertarians would do to fix the current state of affairs if they had such power?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jun 19, 2012)

I voted for H. Ross Perot in 96 (I was old enough by 3days to vote for him in 92, but my dumbass didn't get registered in time).
I had no false hopes of him winning, but i seen it as a chance to exhibit distaste in the two party dominant system. Oh well.
as time goes on it's going to get harder and harder for an independant to pull any signifigant % of the vote.


----------



## broj15 (Jun 19, 2012)

I was drawn to the libertarian party when my employer and I were having a conversation about polotics one night. He was asking me what political party I was going to affiliate myself with when I registered to vote and I told him i didn't really know. He proceeded to ask me what some of my beliefs and ideals were so I told him: A fiscally responsible federal government that only minimally regulates the market (basically a federal government that invades in the business of the state government as little as possible) and a very liberal government when it comes to more social issues such as abortion laws, same sex marriage, and medical marijuana (really big issue for me). He then told me to look into the libertarian party (Ron Paul in particular, when he was still considered a libertarian) and when I did alot of thier polocies made alot of sense (to me atleast).

As far as fixing the problem I would hope the party would end alot of our involvment in foriegn affairs (a huge money pit) and, hopefully use the money normally spent there to help repair our infrastructure (meaning alot of job openings for the unemployed) which meaning there will be less people on welfare and other government aid programs (another huge money pit). Then will come the legalization of medical marijuana (hopefully handled by the state) meaning more job opprotunities for those not cut out for construction, but more cut out for work in a grow house or dispensery. Basically just taking the money we spend over sea's and spending it here to help create jobs and minimalize the need for government aid and help everyone be a little more independant.

Edit: please excuse any spelling mistakes. I'm currently posting from my phone.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 19, 2012)

I would love to vote for a third party, but as was said, it's either libertarian or else they center on just one issue and hope to get elected that way. I hate it, but it looks like I'm stuck voting democrat for now.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 19, 2012)

Weird, I thought you were a staunch republican


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Jun 19, 2012)

Semichastny said:


> What turns you off the Libertarian party? Which single issue Parties do you refer too, and why is having a single issue party a negative to you?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you feel money is the sole or most important factor in political success?



Economic policies of the Libertarian party
- Offer no support to a struggling middle and working class (and that in a recession is just begging for things to get worse)
- Lack of restrictions with Corporations and business do much more harm to the people than little help to the economy. Things like minimum wage, work hours, safety issues to the environment as well as the workers

In order to fix a recession, you need to create a demand again. Social systems like health-care do this, government funded infrastructure projects, Subsidizing the housing market etc. by encouraging spending, creating jobs, and relieving financial pressure on the middle/working class
Libertarian policy says no to all of this and almost anything like it.

And yes, money is the sole and most important factor in political success


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 19, 2012)

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> In order to fix a recession, you need to create a demand again. Social systems like health-care do this, government funded infrastructure projects, Subsidizing the housing market etc. by encouraging spending, creating jobs, and relieving financial pressure on the middle/working class
> Libertarian policy says no to all of this and almost anything like it.



1) America became an economic superpower without healthcare 
2) Infrastructure projects are a dime a dozen in my state yet we have the highest unemployment 
3) subsidizing the housing market (and/or shenanigans involving the housing bubble that burst) is how we got here in the first place. 

back on topic... 

1) no 
2) the issues of the day are pretty broadly covered by both parties effectively, leaving the voter to decided whether or not they like the individual candidate.. at least that's how it should work 
3) not a whole lot 
4) yes


----------



## Semichastny (Jun 19, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> 1) America became an economic superpower without healthcare
> 2) Infrastructure projects are a dime a dozen in my state yet we have the highest unemployment
> 3) subsidizing the housing market (and/or shenanigans involving the housing bubble that burst) is how we got here in the first place.
> 
> ...



In what way would you consider the issues of the day effectively covered? In my experience both parties spill over ideologically, which is why you can't vote for a major party hoping to end the war on drugs or global withdrawl of military forces. I do agree on the housing market statement though.



While I do find myself agreeing with many of the Libertarian Parties political platforms I think they are out of touch with modern times, uncritically support capitalism (in a way that ignores history, research, and fact), are ignorant of socialism and what it literally is, won't hold corporations accountable, and are to willing to cite inaccurate information and unfounded conspiracy theories as fact. (The Japanese economic "miracle" was a pretty good example of a planned economy that flourished.)


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 19, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> 1) America became an economic superpower without healthcare
> 2) Infrastructure projects are a dime a dozen in my state yet we have the highest unemployment
> 3) subsidizing the housing market (and/or shenanigans involving the housing bubble that burst) is how we got here in the first place.



Subsidizing the housing market is not what led to the recession, crazy deregulation on part of Alan Greenspan did. There's a reason Canada barely felt the recession compared to the US.


----------



## MrPepperoniNipples (Jun 19, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> 1) America became an economic superpower without healthcare
> 2) Infrastructure projects are a dime a dozen in my state yet we have the highest unemployment
> 3) subsidizing the housing market (and/or shenanigans involving the housing bubble that burst) is how we got here in the first place.



US became a super power through a world war

What does war do on the home front? It creates a demand for weapons, federal government pays businesses to produce weapons, businesses higher employees for the jobs, etc etc

What does government funded infrastructure do? Federal government pays businesses to complete the project, businesses higher employees for the jobs, etc etc


We did not get into this recession because of subsidizing markets. We have a debt because we were subsidizing the markets.
The economy goes up and down all the time because of overproduction, and then later because of lack of demand, etc etc Adam Smith's studies and all which I'm sure you know

Why are we in debt? Because the Bush administration put into effect expansionary policies during the economies high point, he should have putting into effect the opposite, and contracted the economy with increased taxes, lower government spending, and rushing into two wars didn't help either.

Subsidizing the market while it's on the rise just increased the pace to a bubble-burst that is inevitable when you don't take the money out of it.

I'm going to make a point that this will be my last post here so I don't get caught up in an argument that lasts 10 pages


----------



## zappatton2 (Jun 21, 2012)

I have almost always voted for third parties, though, being Canadian, with 5 parties currently represented in the House, maybe I should say fifth or sixth party. I tend to think, maybe it is a wasted vote, but so many people don't bother voting at all, I can't see how it could hurt. Especially here, there really is a party for everyone. 

Now, teaching multi-party systems to work together, there's the trick. I feel with everyone these days having an online soapbox (myself being just as guilty as anyone), and increasingly partisan and aggressive filters put on just about every news source, it seems modern politics has turned into a nasty game of confrontation and validation. A little compromise for the greater good couldn't possibly hurt.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 21, 2012)

My vote literally does not matter. Washington state goes blue, so I can vote for a goldfish if I desire. According to some online test (which I'm sure is all encompassing and meaningful in every way) my views match some lady named Jill Stein, so I might pencil in her name just for the hell of it.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jun 22, 2012)

Allow me to preface my answers with: I don't vote, as I have no intention of supporting a system of thieves with delusions of grandeur (read: government)

1. **IF** I were to vote, it would probably be Libertarian.
2. See above.
3. Run their ads closer to beer commercials for the greatest bang for their buck.
4. Due to above, I don't keep track, but I don't believe there are.


----------



## McKay (Jun 22, 2012)

MrPepperoniNipples said:


> US became a super power through a world war



America became a superpower when its industrial output caught up to Germany, the UK and Russia.

As for the thread, I voted Liberal Democrat in the last election, so yes I'd vote for a third party.


----------



## BrianUV777BK (Jun 22, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> For some reason, people seem to believe the ads instead of actually looking shit up.




Lazy...


----------



## MFB (Jun 22, 2012)

I'll go totally out and say that I really don't pay attention to political parties besides the two major groups, but given the amount of people saying Libertarian - I'm assuming that's a more fluffed up term for Moderate/Middle-of-the-road? 

If so, that'd be the 3rd Party I support as well


----------



## mniel8195 (Jun 22, 2012)

what do you guys think about not voting? If you dont believe in the system does that make it okay? And please answer with something else than "than move to france you faggot!"


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 22, 2012)

mniel8195 said:


> what do you guys think about not voting? If you dont believe in the system does that make it okay? And please answer with something else than "than move to france you faggot!"


 
That's pretty much my position. I consider my not voting a demonstration of my complete lack of faith in the system. Either side is going to do a bunch of stuff that makes me sad, so it's a wash.

and both parties in this country are right-leaning moderates, the Democrats are so far away from being leftist that they would be considered a very right-wing party in damn near any other place

To answer the OP: Yes, I would vote for a third party but their platform would have to be something special - i.e. harkening back to ideals of Plato's Republic.


----------



## MFB (Jun 22, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> i.e. harkening back to ideals of Plato's Republic.



Good luck with trying to convince everyone to follow those ideals. Great in theory but no one will actually adhere to it as it goes against human nature.


----------



## troyguitar (Jun 23, 2012)

That's why I just don't bother voting. I don't give a shit which money-hungry fuck-off is in which office, they're all bad for me as a middle class, single, socially liberal male. If I were poor I'd vote Democrat, rich I'd vote Republican. Being in the middle makes both options suck


----------



## bob123 (Jun 23, 2012)

I think canadians, english, and other non americans need to stop chiming in on how they would vote in an american election until they become citizens of the united states.

Neg rep me all you want, your biased and media based opinions have absolutely zero bearing on our voting system nor our government.

And for those that seem to not have any clue, our MILITARY is NOT our government. 





so to answer the Op's questions

1) yes
2) modern whigs, because I appreciate their ideals and stand points
3) I don't think they stand a snowballs chance in hell
4) I vote democrat, because I feel that my vote actually means something there, and I support 80% of their ideals.


----------



## areyna21 (Jun 23, 2012)

I would vote third party but I don't completely agree with all of the libertarian ideals. I also don't agree with either republicans or democrats but who fully trusts their party anymore? This is what democracy is though you get some bad politicians and some good ones. A lot of the laws allow these politicians to create careers from being in government. I think if we were to limit terms in office like we did the presidency then we would have a greater chance of being content with our country. Some states have term limits for senators but some do not. One third of the senate is reelected on any given year but with no federal term limits most get to stay in their position of power. I think if we had a way to allow more citizens to represent us over a given time then things would not be so bad. The decision making would not be so concentrated in the hands of the few. A single senator represents over 600,000 people and for someone to be able to represent you for decades I think stifles discussion and concentrates the power inviting corruption. The longest serving senator served over 51 years that is a lifetime to some people. I think if we did this it would invite more parties and give people hope that they could have more options. In turn making our house more diverse which would open up more discussions to solving our problems by having people with different ideas. 

to answer your questions straight up though
1)Yes
2)I support a third party because i think the power is too concentrated within the two parties
3)Well smear campaigns are the obvious first choice but i don't agree with them. I think heavy internet campaigning would help since social sites are free and heavily used. Using the internet and advocating for the freedom of the people to use it uncensored. Forcing other political parties to either adhere to their policies and ideas or be forced to move out of the way. Once people see that there is a ray of hope then that's the fuel that will drive innovation and change in our country. The internet is too big of a monster that many politicians fear the hell out of. When small battles and give the credit to the people who allowed you to have a voice. Once you make people feel like they are a part of a story a lot will follow. 
4)Yes I am aware of the third parties in my area.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jun 25, 2012)

The practical purpose of a third party in the U.S. system is to offset an otherwise predictable election by taking votes from either the Republican or Democratic candidate and leaving them vulnerable to defeat when they would otherwise be the winner. That's basically what happened in 2000, right? Damn Green party...

But anyways...

1. No.

2. See above.

3. Somehow defy all current political reality and become a major party, or just change the entire voting system into the ever so confusing Alternative Votes System, where each voter chooses which candidate they'd like best, and then ranks the rest based on a declining preference.

For example:

Nader: 2
Gore: 1
Bush: 3
Buchanan: 4

4. If I can count the New World Order Ron Paul thumpers, yes. Other than that it's pretty black and white with all the old hippies and cherry farmers.


----------



## Freezing Moon (Jul 1, 2012)

I don't vote period.

Voting ensures that you are controlled. If you want something done, activism is the way to go. The leaders you vote for are put into place due to their backing by globalist institutions--this goes for both parties, who are ridden with filthy corruption. Third parties don't have a chance. In fact, anyone with a slight of dissenting opinion has no chance, and Ron Paul, among others in one of the two major parties, is proof of this.


----------



## Sicarius (Jul 2, 2012)

mniel8195 said:


> what do you guys think about not voting? If you dont believe in the system does that make it okay? And please answer with something else than "than move to france you faggot!"



While my decision to not vote isn't quite as... "noble" (not the word I'm looking for, but it'll do.) as others, I don't vote because there hasn't been someone that I'd want to vote for.


Haven't seen much of the Libertarian party, aside from what Ron Paul was talking about (even though he's running as a Republican), and what he had to say didn't interest me in the slightest.

So, I just wait for any candidate to make me want to vote for him/her.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jul 3, 2012)

I will only vote for a nonpartisan candidate, and that will never happen.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 3, 2012)

ittoa666 said:


> I will only vote for a nonpartisan candidate, and that will never happen.


 
Well maybe next time Bill O'rielly will run.


----------



## GhostsofAcid (Jul 3, 2012)

1. No

2. There is no chance for a third party candidate to win in a presidential context. Even if I dislike both candidates in a presidential race, one will seem marginally less bad, and that one will get my vote. I liken it to choosing between getting punched in the face or kicked in the crotch 

3. I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, really. Obviously they don't.

4. Yes


----------



## FormerlyVintage (Jul 3, 2012)

I can't believe you guys still aren't all voting for Vermin Supreme.
[/MEDIA]


----------



## tacotiklah (Jul 3, 2012)

^Dumbledore?


----------



## ElRay (Jul 3, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> A vote for a third party is a vote _against_ whichever major party's policies they most closely resemble.


Only because the masses are too f'n lazy to vote non-Republicrat.

Based on my informal polls over the past decade of elections, if the people that said "I'd vote for [insert some non-Republicrat Candidate], but they have no chance of winning." actually voted their conscience instead of wasting their vote by voting for the lesser of two evils, we'd have seen huge differences in American politics because (1) More non-Republicrats would be in office, (2) The existing Republicrats would have to cut the political gamesmanship and actually get things done, because they'd be losing tons of votes. Basically, 40-60% of the folks I've spoken with are NOT happy with the Republicrats.

And the sad reality is that the folks voting for the less or two evils are actually wasting their votes. Given the Electoral College system, any vote for a candidate over 50% is wasted -- they've already won the state. And any vote for the Republicrat non-winner is "wasted". If the voters actually voted their conscience and the Republicrats started losing 10, 20, 30% of the votes, they'd change their acts.

My suggestions this election year:
Vote - Don't waste your vote by staying home.
Investigate the 3rd Party Candidates.
Vote - Republicrats don't care if they piss-off 90% of eligible voters, as long as they get a plurality of the few that actually vote, they "win".
If you're in a battleground state, and you truly hate one of the Republicrats, go ahead, vote for "the other one".
If your state is a lock-in for one flavor of Republicrat, vote for the 3rd Party Candidate you prefer.
Vote - Even if you hate both Republicrats, and don't really have a preference for a 3rd Party, pick one non-Republicrat at random.
Republicrats don't care that less only ~50% of eligible voters actually register and that only ~50% of registered voters actually vote (i.e. less than 25% of the population determines the politicians that supposedly run the show) -- All they care about is getting that 1 vote over the plurality. In fact, they'd love it if everybody but their sycophants stayed home.

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, VOTE, ...
Even is all you do is to vote for any non-Republicrats that managed to jump through all the hurdles and road-blocks the Rebuplicrats have put-up. Sorry NC (national capital of the uncontested candidate), your choices may be near zero.

If people stay home because they're disgusted, or vote for a lesser-of-two-evils Republicrat, nothing will change and they've truly wasted their vote. If you don't like the status quo, change it. You can't do that by staying home or voting for the Republicrats that put us in this position to begin with.

Ray


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 3, 2012)

ElRay said:


> Based on my informal polls over the past decade of elections, if the people that said "I'd vote for [insert some non-Republicrat Candidate], but they have no chance of winning." actually voted their conscience instead of wasting their vote by voting for the lesser of two evils, we'd have seen huge differences in American politics because (1) More non-Republicrats would be in office, (2) The existing Republicrats would have to cut the political gamesmanship and actually get things done, because they'd be losing tons of votes. Basically, 40-60% of the folks I've spoken with are NOT happy with the Republicrats.



I went on a rant like this when people said a vote for NDP is a waste during the most recent election. On top of this I would add:

The 3rd party doesn't need to win. If they actually start to get some votes people will start to realise their are other choices. NDP is now the official opposition in Canada. Vote for whom you want to, it can (won't always but can) make a difference.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 7, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well maybe next time Bill O'rielly will run.



Funny joke bro


----------



## Decline Of Society (Jul 8, 2012)

Hahahaha. As if! 

America is one step from totalitarianism. A two party system? Srsly? And you call yourself a democracy? What choice do you have? One of the "lesser evil"? 

I always maintain that too many parties in a parlament are a waste of talk and air, but honestly, you NEED more than two to represent the opinions of a nation as big as the US.


----------



## loki (Jul 8, 2012)

If you look at the political philosophies of some of America's past great liberal leaders (i.e. Kennedy, Truman) they would not be democrats today. Much of the turmoil within the republican party has been created by old school liberals joining the republican party and competing for ideology. Today's Democrats have moved so far to the left they would be considered communists 50 years ago. (FYI: communism has always failed every time it has been tried)

If you look at the platforms of the two major parties you will find elements of the libertarian platform supported by elements within the republican party. Rather than support a third party with 0% of succeeding we should be supporting those elements within the republican party so as to increase their influence and power to advance those platforms. "That" is the way to meaningful political reform.

This election is not a choice between Romney and Obama but rather between traditional American capitalism and socialism/communism. Socialism has never ever succeeded when tried. It "always" leads to failure.

Our economic problems are the result of the rise of china with her undervalued currency and cheap labor. Relative to china the U.S. and European economies have become over-inflated and "must" deflate in order to compete. Socialist governmental policies make our economies vulnerable to an orderly deflationary cycle which can lead to a more competitive economy. Viewed from this perspective Obama and the democrats are doing the exact opposite of what we must do to fix our economy. A traditional capitalistic approach championed by libertarians and fiscal conservatives within the republican party is the correct approach.

If wages are allowed to fall, if prices are allowed to fall, if governmental restrictions to engaging in business and manufacturing are allowed to fall, we can begin to compete with china economically. look at the 1960's. prices were lower, wages were lower and America was the top economic/manufacturing power and enjoyed the world's highest standard of living with a smaller, less intrusive government. That should be our past AND future.

We can make that happen by supporting the libertarian elements within the existing power structure today.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 8, 2012)

As I understand it actually, most old Republicans would be considered democrats today and the Democratic party in the US, that is SOOOO Left Wing, is actually farther right than most countries right wing parties.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 8, 2012)

loki said:


> If you look at the political philosophies of some of America's past great liberal leaders (i.e. Kennedy, Truman) they would not be democrats today. Much of the turmoil within the republican party has been created by old school liberals joining the republican party and competing for ideology. Today's Democrats have moved so far to the left they would be considered communists 50 years ago. (FYI: communism has always failed every time it has been tried)



Care to back that up with some examples or comparisons? 

I completely disagree. The Democratic Party under Obama has been slowly moving right to try and compete with the growing anti-government idiotology. The way I see it, the left is not the extreme party but rather the party that is being forced against it's own values as a direct result of the conservative hype you're perpetuating.

Unfortunately for Obama, you can't argue with an ideology based in hot air, nor can you appeal to anyone that's delusional enough to see Obama as a leftist.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 9, 2012)

LOL. Modern Democrats are "socialists"? That one always cracks me up. A government providing necessary services to its citizens is hardly "socialist", and the current Democratic party is center-right.

I'd love to get some of the real left-leaning, progressive movements from the 70s and 80s back in politics to counter the current insane rush to try to re-enact the 1950s.


----------



## Semichastny (Jul 9, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> LOL. Modern Democrats are "socialists"? That one always cracks me up. A government providing necessary services to its citizens is hardly "socialist", and the current Democratic party is center-right.
> 
> I'd love to get some of the real left-leaning, progressive movements from the 70s and 80s back in politics to counter the current insane rush to try to re-enact the 1950s.



It has been a truly long time since a legitimately left politician has had real national influence in American politics. I have little doubt the people who call democrats "Communists" or "Socialists" have no idea what either system actually is and would fail the citizenship test if they took it.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 9, 2012)

I think Bernie Sanders is about as far left as it gets in the Senate today. He's not tremendously influential, though.

And he's from my home state.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 10, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> I think Bernie Sanders is about as far left as it gets in the Senate today. He's not tremendously influential, though.
> 
> And he's from my home state.








If this is "Socialism", sign me up.


----------



## AxeHappy (Jul 10, 2012)

Sounds like a real capitalist to me!


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 11, 2012)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/o....html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120711


----------



## Decline Of Society (Jul 11, 2012)

American politics seem to be stuck in 1950. One is apparently either a republican capitalist patriot, or a socialist. Might as well call them nazi's then. "You" already use the same kind of disgust in your tone and subtext. 

Modern parlamentary democracies are not that cut and dry. You need the entire spectre. From far left, through moderates, hybrids, coalitions and the far right for balance. 

Republican vs. Democrat just seems like Oligarch vs. Bleeding heart idealist.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 11, 2012)

Decline Of Society said:


> American politics seem to be stuck in 1950. One is apparently either a republican capitalist patriot, or a socialist. Might as well call them nazi's then. "You" already use the same kind of disgust in your tone and subtext.
> 
> Modern parlamentary democracies are not that cut and dry. You need the entire spectre. From far left, through moderates, hybrids, coalitions and the far right for balance.
> 
> Republican vs. Democrat just seems like Oligarch vs. Bleeding heart idealist.



Actually, if you stop listening to the dialogue and look at policy, we have Far Right + Fundamentalist + Libertarian vs. Moderate Centrist. There's no left-leaning bleeding-heart idealists to pull the dialogue back in the other direction.


----------



## Decline Of Society (Jul 11, 2012)

That just sounds even worse.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 11, 2012)

I like that "If it's too big to fail it's too big to exist".


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 11, 2012)

A very long but good article.

OBAMA vs ROMNEY: Here's Who's Right About The Economy - Business Insider

Part of the problem with a broken media system is that facts and evidence are seldom included in the conversation anymore. This is a very bad thing when you consider that a functioning political system is in essence a contest where part of the effort is in fighting selfishly for your own interests, and the other half is meeting in the middle where most can agree and progress can be made. That is crucial to the Democratic system because without a voice for the center reality of the current discussion, the radicals are free to influence like they never could before. Add that to the Citizens United ruing, and you have corporate sponsored politicians. 

It's genius, really. Very, very scary genius. 

So considering all that, is it really any wonder why we now have such a far right Republican party and a Democratic party desperately trying to catch up to the propaganda wagon?


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 11, 2012)

Democracy requires a basic level of education, information, and knowledge to be distributed amongst all concerned so as to ensure a meaningful participation in the electoral process.

With misinformation and willful ignorance rampant, we are seeing things start to get very, very scary.


----------



## Decline Of Society (Jul 12, 2012)




----------



## Necris (Jul 12, 2012)

loki said:


> If you look at the political philosophies of some of America's past great liberal leaders (i.e. Kennedy, Truman) they would not be democrats today. Much of the turmoil within the republican party has been created by old school liberals joining the republican party and competing for ideology. Today's Democrats have moved so far to the left they would be considered communists 50 years ago. (FYI: communism has always failed every time it has been tried)
> 
> This election is not a choice between Romney and Obama but rather between traditional American capitalism and socialism/communism. Socialism has never ever succeeded when tried. It "always" leads to failure.
> 
> ...


Oh, the other face of idealism rears its ugly head. Conservative Idealism. Nice talking points by the way, maybe you'll blow my mind and come back here with sources that support your claims with evidence. Fun fact, the democrats from the time of the founders would be seen as republicans today. All you've pointed out as that views change over time, not really the deepest insight into politics I've ever seen.

All the democratic party has done is moved so far to the left side of the right wing that they may hit the center between left and right within 20 years. Whether or not we would be seen as Communists through the eyes of a person living under the specters of Mccarthyism and the Cold war is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the facts. The facts being that the democrats aren't implementing anything resembling communist policies into government and are barely even touching what could qualify as actual Socialism.




> If wages are allowed to fall, if prices are allowed to fall, if governmental restrictions to engaging in business and manufacturing are allowed to fall, we can begin to compete with china economically. look at the 1960's. prices were lower, wages were lower and America was the top economic/manufacturing power and enjoyed the world's highest standard of living with a smaller, less intrusive government. That should be our past AND future.


"If only we dropped the minimum wage, then everything would work itself out". 
Adjusted for inflation the minimum wage in the United States in the 60's ($1.25/hr) was roughly $9.71 an hour. The current national minimum wage is $7.25, things don't seem to be working themselves out.

The bread I bought yesterday for (I think) 3.79, would be $29.43 in 1960s dollars, the sandwich meat in the refrigerator? $52.72 . So were prices of goods and wages for the lowest paid workers really lower?

Here is an inflation calculator if you want to check for yourself. CPI Inflation Calculator

Here's a fun thing for you to think about, assuming that cutting the minimum wage further would somehow fix everything, _when _should we lower it? I'm not sure exactly what basis you are using to assert that if we drop wages the cost of living will drop in tandem with the wage cuts.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> For some reason, people seem to believe the ads instead of actually looking shit up.



All the while telling you "Don't believe everything you see on TV." 

That's probably why...


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

Necris said:


> Oh, the other face of idealism rears its ugly head. Conservative Idealism. Nice talking points by the way, maybe you'll blow my mind and come back here with sources that support your claims with evidence. Fun fact, the democrats from the time of the founders would be seen as republicans today. All you've pointed out as that views change over time, not really the deepest insight into politics I've ever seen.
> 
> All the democratic party has done is moved so far to the left side of the right wing that they may hit the center between left and right within 20 years. Whether or not we would be seen as Communists through the eyes of a person living under the specters of Mccarthyism and the Cold war is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the facts. The facts being that the democrats aren't implementing anything resembling communist policies into government and are barely even touching what could qualify as actual Socialism.
> 
> ...



Lowering minimum wage just seems like it would make it more difficult for some folks to make a living. If you take that to the extreme and assume that they'll no longer be able to live/support themselves then theoretically we'd have to produce less as a nation to support those of us that can "afford to live" and I assume that might lower the cost of living some, but that seems kind of fucked up. 

Perhaps there's another avenue I've yet to explore?


----------



## Necris (Jul 12, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Lowering minimum wage just seems like it would make it more difficult for some folks to make a living. If you take that to the extreme and assume that they'll no longer be able to live/support themselves then theoretically we'd have to produce less as a nation to support those of us that can "afford to live" and I assume that might lower the cost of living some, but that seems kind of fucked up.
> 
> Perhaps there's another avenue I've yet to explore?


That's the thing, all cutting the minimum wage does is lower the minimum wage, it doesn't reduce inflation, it doesn't convince people to take lower paying jobs, it doesn't create jobs directly, it doesn't open factories, it doesn't drop prices and it doesn't change the fact that we still import more than we export.
For an indeterminable amount of time we would have a transitional period where we would still be importing most of the things we use in everyday life at the exact same price but have less money to buy them with while simultaneously bringing in very little money from exporting goods we made ourselves.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

Personally, it sounds a lot to me like everyone that suggests a new way to do things suggests something that really only seems to protect their own interests (and perhaps the interests of their peers) under the facade of it being for the greater good. If what was once liberal is now conservative, it seems to me it's difficult to establish order in something that's constantly changing w/o a certain level of willingness to change along with the times. 

Also, I don't vote.

I don't like how they go after "the black vote" or the "latino vote" or the "female vote." That to me is almost directly saying "We don't really care about the politics per se, we just know what we have to say to get you to vote for us." Not only that, but that groups all blacks together, all women together, all latinos together, etc. Seems like it would make more sense to go after them based on economic groups as opposed to social groups. In other words, the rich, middle class and poor vote. Some might find those words "offensive" but it's no less offensive than what they do now in my opinion.

Also, after seeing how America reacted to the notion of having a president that isn't a 50 year old bald fat white man was really disappointing. The continuing debate over his lineage is of further concern. These are the issues my country cares about? To the point that it makes fucking national news? 

I'm watching something now... "President Obama is the first black president..." "But it's noteworthy that his mother WAS white..." Ahh... When a black man accomplishes something his "white side is noteworthy." If he'd somehow COMPLETELY destroyed the country we'd be bringing back the fuckin' One Drop Rule... 

And this is why I don't vote in this country. Fuck all politicians.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 12, 2012)

The problem is, we do not have candidates and interest groups to support our nation's youth. And part of that is because, as a block, we do not vote; and those that do are just as swayed by the ideological splits and misinformation that characterize political discourse as the baby boomers are.

Voting is very important; if they see more of us younger people coming to the polls, then they will start to move in our direction.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

That's an excellent point, but it bothers me that they will only say certain things bc it gets them the vote. Did they not believe in the same ideals prior to seeing that ppl are willing to vote for it? The reason I don't vote is because when I look at it like this none of them appear genuine. And no amount of ppl going to the polls will change that. If anything it only seems to exacerbate that particular problem.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 12, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> That's an excellent point, but it bothers me that they will only say certain things bc it gets them the vote. Did they not believe in the same ideals prior to seeing that ppl are willing to vote for it? The reason I don't vote is because when I look at it like this none of them appear genuine. And no amount of ppl going to the polls will change that. If anything it only seems to exacerbate that particular problem.



Isn't that the point of an elected government? To govern based on popular opinion?

Remember, Santorum got where he did because people agreed with him. Same with Gingrich, same with Obama. Romney is just a lot more transparent about it than most.

All you are doing by not voting is giving those that you disagree with a greater voice and greater control in the governance of our country.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

Governing based on popular opinion is one thing. But it seems more like they just say what they have to say to get a vote in the way they go about it. I'm not even sure we're arguing the same point, but it doesn't matter I won't post anymore about it.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 12, 2012)

loki said:


> If you look at the political philosophies of some of America's past great liberal leaders (i.e. Kennedy, Truman) they would not be democrats today. Much of the turmoil within the republican party has been created by old school liberals joining the republican party and competing for ideology. Today's Democrats have moved so far to the left they would be considered communists 50 years ago. (FYI: communism has always failed every time it has been tried)
> 
> If you look at the platforms of the two major parties you will find elements of the libertarian platform supported by elements within the republican party. Rather than support a third party with 0% of succeeding we should be supporting those elements within the republican party so as to increase their influence and power to advance those platforms. "That" is the way to meaningful political reform.
> 
> ...


 
Great post, nice to see there are a few others on here who actually "get it right". 

Don't mind people pretending you have no facts or evidence to support these statements when in fact our entire american and world history are the evidence.
Less government is always better for those who want not to be led around on a leash.
This wealth redistribution crap and victims mentality will be the downfall of our current socialistic administration.
Lets just hope that when the republicans take back over that they don't piss away another chance for positive governmental reform.
We need to get out the old gaurd and rally around some of the younger true statesmen like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. They are still politicians yes, but they have the right vision of where this country should be going, which is up, not down.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jul 12, 2012)

You said a whole lot just to say nothing but name drop...


----------



## Randy (Jul 12, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Rand Paul and Paul Ryan



I have yet to hear somebody advocate for this 'cut EVERYTHING' stuff and not sound entirely self serving. It's total, like, 'not seeing the world past the end of your nose' thinking. Let's advocate for cutting every program we _personally_ are lucky enough to not need the direct benefit of. There's no accounting for the fact they might someday need those same programs, that having a society with those programs creates an environment where they've been able to succeed or, god forbid, there are other people out there in very different circumstances in their life and rely on those programs.

Ron and Rand Paul (as well as Paul Ryan) are famous for this kind of thinking.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 12, 2012)

Necris said:


> Oh, the other face of idealism rears its ugly head. Conservative Idealism. Nice talking points by the way, maybe you'll blow my mind and come back here with sources that support your claims with evidence. Fun fact, the democrats from the time of the founders would be seen as republicans today. All you've pointed out as that views change over time, not really the deepest insight into politics I've ever seen.
> 
> All the democratic party has done is moved so far to the left side of the right wing that they may hit the center between left and right within 20 years. Whether or not we would be seen as Communists through the eyes of a person living under the specters of Mccarthyism and the Cold war is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on the facts. The facts being that the democrats aren't implementing anything resembling communist policies into government and are barely even touching what could qualify as actual Socialism.
> 
> ...



Also we shouldn't be trying to reach "China's quality" since most people there are very poor and are controlled heavily by their leaders. They are heavy polluters and have no problem screwing other people/countries over if it benefits them. (referring to government and big business in China not the people) There will be a point very soon when China's prosperity will burst and begin stabilizing.



Randy said:


> I have yet to hear somebody advocate for this 'cut EVERYTHING' stuff and not sound entirely self serving. It's total, like, 'not seeing the world past the end of your nose' thinking. Let's advocate for cutting every program we _personally_ are lucky enough to not need the direct benefit of. There's no accounting for the fact they might someday need those same programs, that having a society with those programs creates an environment where they've been able to succeed or, god forbid, there are other people out there in very different circumstances in their life and rely on those programs.
> 
> Ron and Rand Paul (as well as Paul Ryan) are famous for this kind of thinking.



Yeah and having a safety net makes for an overall healthier society. Imagine growing old and knowing that at a certain point you had no insurance, no money, just nothing. I imagine you might put yourself in an early grave from stress. 

Anybody who thinks welfare is a bad thing is a prick and I know plenty of assholes who don't deserve it and still come to this conclusion. Yes these systems need some patch work, but they are not a bad thing and ending them is not the solution. Same with education, NASA, etc. I mean come on innovation and intelligent people existing 20 years from now seems rather important to our future. Not investing in edutation will just put is in yet another rut 15 years from now and so on.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Jul 12, 2012)

Randy said:


> I have yet to hear somebody advocate for this 'cut EVERYTHING' stuff and not sound entirely self serving. It's total, like, 'not seeing the world past the end of your nose' thinking. Let's advocate for cutting every program we _personally_ are lucky enough to not need the direct benefit of. There's no accounting for the fact they might someday need those same programs, that having a society with those programs creates an environment where they've been able to succeed or, god forbid, there are other people out there in very different circumstances in their life and rely on those programs.
> 
> Ron and Rand Paul (as well as Paul Ryan) are famous for this kind of thinking.


 
When you start every day by handing out bones to all the dogs, then you no longer have dogs who wake up everyday to go hunt bones.

This is one reason that our tax base can't keep up with the run away spending. When so many people are collecting untaxable checks it is hard to collect enough taxes.
Far too many people with minor physical ailments are also being coddled to the point of national bankruptsy.
I personally know several people here locally who collect the monthly sit home on the ass check for "social anxiety" and "schizo".
There are certainly extreme cases in which these disorders are indeed debilitating, but that's not what's going on here and across the country.

Get rid of the system abuse, get rid of all this foriegn aid which just results in other countries behaving as ridiculously as ours at the moment, 
and we might just start placing a dent in the budget problem.

We need to quit handing out government cash to all these companies, and in return reduce buracratic brown tape so that they can sink or swim on there own merits.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 12, 2012)

Yes we should let children starve and the 1.7% (give or take) getting most of there income from welfare will surely destroy us all. The other 6% don't get much (the total is 8% again give or take) and is probably a reference to CHIPS, food stamps, etc. 

I don't disagree in some ways because like I said I do no (at least 2) people who are lethargic leeches who have been sucking on mommies tit for too long, but this is not overwhelmingly the case.

But hey fuck them right, you'll never lose your job and if you do rest happy knowing that without welfare you'll have to get to the soup kitchen by 4-5 am every day and probably starve to death. I don't know about you, but I love bums all over big cities.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 12, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> When you start every day by handing out bones to all the dogs, then you no longer have dogs who wake up everyday to go hunt bones.
> 
> This is one reason that our tax base can't keep up with the run away spending. When so many people are collecting untaxable checks it is hard to collect enough taxes.
> Far too many people with minor physical ailments are also being coddled to the point of national bankruptsy.
> ...



So, because we have a few freeloaders, that means everyone on welfare automatically doesn't deserve it, and the whole program needs to be scrapped?

You sound like Rick Perry, defunding Texas's entire public health system so that Planned Parenthood won't get any state money. You're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I don't know what your life story is, dude, but I've had to live off of unemployment before, after a completely unexpected layoff. It's humiliating, frustrating, and not a good place to be, but I'm glad it was there to help me pay bills and keep myself afloat while job hunting, and I'm glad it will be there in the future if I ever experience that again.

Having been there and experienced that, there is absolutely no way I'm buying into the whole "everyone receiving government assistance is lazy and unmotivated to do any better just because they're getting money for doing nothing." Remember, being on welfare is kind of shitty, dude. And Americans are nothing if not greedy for MORE STUFF. Most people (I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast, vast majority) would rather make more money than less, and a job is pretty much the only way to do that.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 12, 2012)

I agree^^^

The biggest problem with welfare though is the gap between no job and job. If you have welfare benefits it is usually financially better than a shitty entry level job leaving "some" people unwilling or unable to move on to the bigger and better you speak of. Those people however are very shortsighted and again are not out in huge numbers either. Most people will take the bad with the good and move on to something better in the long term and far less humiliating.


----------



## Necris (Jul 12, 2012)

You don't cut down a tree because it has one dead branch, when you have impacted wisdom teeth dentists don't remove your entire jaw to solve the problem, if you have a window that lets in a draft you don't burn down your house to remove the draft _*but*_ *for some reason* when a small portion of people choose to game the system we have to throw out the entire system. This is a line of reasoning that only works in politics.



TRENCHLORD said:


> When you start every day by handing out bones to all the dogs, then you no longer have dogs who wake up everyday to go hunt bones.


 This isn't the great analogy you think it is, and heres why, you're lacking scope, you're lacking elements that exist within our society that are directly related to what you are arguing against. You do this quite a bit.
If the dog had been finding larger bones while hunting than the ones he was being given without hunting and in fact prefers them your argument suddenly isn't so black and white.
You're basing your argument on the assumption that if you give me $1000 a month and I could be making $5,000 a month that I will turn down the chance for more money because it requires me to forgo an easy $1000 for an increase in income. For some people this is true, but they are the minority and by using them as the basis for your claim you are making a hasty generalization drawn from a biased sample. Those are logical fallacies.


----------



## ittoa666 (Jul 13, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well maybe next time Bill O'rielly will run.


----------



## renzoip (Jul 13, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Personally, it sounds a lot to me like everyone that suggests a new way to do things suggests something that really only seems to protect their own interests (and perhaps the interests of their peers) under the facade of it being for the greater good. If what was once liberal is now conservative, it seems to me it's difficult to establish order in something that's constantly changing w/o a certain level of willingness to change along with the times.
> 
> Also, I don't vote.
> 
> ...



I fully agree with this sentiment, and both parties are guilty of pandering to "minorities" as if the members of these communities all thought exactly alike. Part of what makes minorities a disadvantaged group in the first place is the fact that theses groups are highly divided among those who have been able to "make it" in mainstream society, and those who remain disadvantaged, so personal interests will differ even among "minority" groups.

Which, leads me to my next point, that social class is a big factor. While I see liberals wanting to embrace certain "minority" groups, I think their idea of "identity politics" is misguided and ultimately divisive for the disadvantaged. I think that the systematic disadvantages suffered by different "minority" groups are more like symptoms of a greater disease (socio-political-economic inequality being the disease). I think the politicians should instead try addressing this issue, as it could unite all the people who are on the losing end of the system rather than trying to break them down into smaller "minority" groups. 

This is where I think a third party should come in. A little bit of class analysis doesn't hurt. And let's not worry about people crying out "ZOMG socialism/fascism", they probably don't understand either.


----------



## JStraitiff (Jul 13, 2012)

1) I am a libertarian.
2) I agree with libertarian views but i nary support any candidates.
3) No clue. Probably not much hope of it.
4) Yes


----------



## flint757 (Jul 13, 2012)

renzoip said:


> I fully agree with this sentiment, and both parties are guilty of pandering to "minorities" as if the members of these communities all thought exactly alike. Part of what makes minorities a disadvantaged group in the first place is the fact that theses groups are highly divided among those who have been able to "make it" in mainstream society, and those who remain disadvantaged, so personal interests will differ even among "minority" groups.
> 
> Which, leads me to my next point, that social class is a big factor. While I see liberals wanting to embrace certain "minority" groups, I think their idea of "identity politics" is misguided and ultimately divisive for the disadvantaged. I think that the systematic disadvantages suffered by different "minority" groups are more like symptoms of a greater disease (socio-political-economic inequality being the disease). I think the politicians should instead try addressing this issue, as it could unite all the people who are on the losing end of the system rather than trying to break them down into smaller "minority" groups.
> 
> This is where I think a third party should come in. A little bit of class analysis doesn't hurt. And let's not worry about people crying out "ZOMG socialism/fascism", they probably don't understand either.




Ahhh but that is the other issue politicians want the poor to be divided. Most politicians (probably all) are among the upper middle class and wealthy so they on a selfish level aren't going to want to do what is best for "everybody". A house divided falls and I don't think they want it any different. Same reason I think they are trying to make education worse (that and for whatever reason the government is involved in everything even when they lack the specialty/skills to do so).


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 15, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> When you start every day by handing out bones to all the dogs, then you no longer have dogs who wake up everyday to go hunt bones.
> 
> This is one reason that our tax base can't keep up with the run away spending. When so many people are collecting untaxable checks it is hard to collect enough taxes.
> Far too many people with minor physical ailments are also being coddled to the point of national bankruptsy.
> ...



Here's my take on the people that do nothing but scam the system.

Today I watched three meth addicts buy six 12 packs of pop with a Bridge Card so that they could pour out the pop and return the cans for liquor in the grocery store I work at in a town of 500 people in northern Michigan, aka where poverty doesn't exist.

As the day progressed, my Co-workers became increasingly disgusted with their behavior. This struck me as odd, because these are people whom barely make more than they would receiving a Welfare check themselves. Then I realized they weren't disgusted because of economic class or anything like that; they were simply disgusted at the idea that someone would rather scam, lie, and cheat their way through life than at least work a shitty job at a grocery store like them.

Absolutely no one actually wants to be on food stamps or welfare itself. This is the country that spent the first few years of the Great Depression pretending it wasn't happening because of the extreme societal pressure to be successful and pull your own weight through self reliance. In fact, it was because of that embarrassment that these sorts of programs and safety nets came into being, not in spite of them.

My boss is expected to call the cops when/if they come in tomorrow because he doesn't even want them in the store for people to see. That level of disgust isn't indicative of normal people, it's a reflection of the kind of people that would be living that way regardless of the existence of a safety net to fall back on.

Edit: Isn't the Affordable Care Act and the Mandate it's built upon (now a tax addition since Supreme Court ruling) a serious reform on system abuse?


----------



## flint757 (Jul 15, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> Here's my take on the people that do nothing but scam the system.
> 
> Today I watched three meth addicts buy six 12 packs of pop with a Bridge Card so that they could pour out the pop and return the cans for liquor in the grocery store I work at in a town of 500 people in northern Michigan, aka where poverty doesn't exist.
> 
> ...



Exactly my youngest sister (older than me) would scam someone/the system no matter if she had food stamps, child support or welfare to fall back on. Have a conversation with the people who behave this way and it becomes increasingly clear, it is not the programs or civilization that created this very small group of people, but a flawed personality (possibly disorder like narcissism or histrionics personality disorder). 

They think beyond logic that they are owed something and that if it can be had for free or next to nothing why not even if better options exist to get better things out of life. I hate that bitch with every fiber of my being and my mom tries to talk logically with her weekly (responsibility, worse before better, long term goals instead of short term, etc.), but she'll never understand because there is something wrong with her internal programming. 

I honestly think it could be classified as a mental disorder and as we know mental disorders do not make up the larger part of our society so why do people insist that there is this large problem that in fact does not exist on a larger scale in the first place.


----------



## 7STRINGWARRIOR (Jul 20, 2012)

Even though IMO, the presidential election is pretty much irrelevant (I see a congress full of folks that need to get booted to the curb) and we may not even see one (if we go into war our current president can declare our country in the state of emergency and use the executive orders of martial law to cancel the election)

I'm supporting Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, although I believe it's irrelevant.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 21, 2012)

The biggest problem with politics is it became a career track. I understand that everyone is far too busy to get involved, but at the same time why can't we cycle a little more at the very least. I wouldn't mind if it was like 2 terms in a row limit so you get the boot for the third and if you were amazing you can come back. 

In the senate honestly there should be a 1 term limit. There are just as short contracts in existence for other careers like DARPA as an example so it isn't like it is illogical and most of them seem to have law degrees so they wouldn't be helpless. 

The problem that is occurring is stagnation and the notion that undoing things is more important than doing things. It seems everyone has a big head and thinks that collaboration is just nigh impossible and that no one could possibly no better than themselves.  Voting in itself is flawed because of the electoral college and popular vote the minority gets silenced right at the county level and then again at the state level. POPULAR vote please.


----------



## mikernaut (Jul 21, 2012)

I'm voting for the Ancient Alien candidate to come down and laser these useless politicians.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Jul 21, 2012)




----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 21, 2012)

flint757 said:


> The biggest problem with politics is it became a career track. I understand that everyone is far too busy to get involved, but at the same time why can't we cycle a little more at the very least. I wouldn't mind if it was like 2 terms in a row limit so you get the boot for the third and if you were amazing you can come back.
> 
> In the senate honestly there should be a 1 term limit. There are just as short contracts in existence for other careers like DARPA as an example so it isn't like it is illogical and most of them seem to have law degrees so they wouldn't be helpless.
> 
> The problem that is occurring is stagnation and the notion that undoing things is more important than doing things. It seems everyone has a big head and thinks that collaboration is just nigh impossible and that no one could possibly no better than themselves.  Voting in itself is flawed because of the electoral college and popular vote the minority gets silenced right at the county level and then again at the state level. POPULAR vote please.



The biggest problem in American Politics is that it is now fair game to govern with money instead of public interest. There is far more money in making people vote against their own interests than there is in the truth, and that's one of the reasons we've lost our center as a country. No one believes that their interests and well being ever deserve to be shared with someone elses because they don't see the benefits of shared prosperity like we've had for so long.

In my opinion, this translates into a resurgence of late 1800's-esque policy makers that want you to believe that the Constitution was never meant to change and evolve with time, and everything would be so much better before the dam gov'ment broke up those railroad monopolies and started forcing corporations to grant workers basic human rights. These policies helped build and sustain the great cities that drive our economy; to ignore the benefits of smart government to the countries' well being is utter suicide.

Changing the term limits seems drastic to me. Members of congress are by nature a more permanent seat of office ifthey keep their district happy. As long as the vast majority of (rational) people stay ignorant of what is happening on the national level of politics and what electing their congressman or woman means to that, not much will change.

It's going to take a lot of organizing to counter the gaseous pile of human waste that the Tea Party has turned into. Hopefully as they get more and more ridiculous, more people will be coming around to realize how important it is to bring some sense back into politics.


----------



## zappatton2 (Jul 21, 2012)

mikernaut said:


> I'm voting for the Ancient Alien candidate to come down and laser these useless politicians.



...abortions for some, miniature American flags for others...


----------



## flint757 (Jul 21, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> The biggest problem in American Politics is that it is now fair game to govern with money instead of public interest. There is far more money in making people vote against their own interests than there is in the truth, and that's one of the reasons we've lost our center as a country. No one believes that their interests and well being ever deserve to be shared with someone elses because they don't see the benefits of shared prosperity like we've had for so long.
> 
> In my opinion, this translates into a resurgence of late 1800's-esque policy makers that want you to believe that the Constitution was never meant to change and evolve with time, and everything would be so much better before the dam gov'ment broke up those railroad monopolies and started forcing corporations to grant workers basic human rights. These policies helped build and sustain the great cities that drive our economy; to ignore the benefits of smart government to the countries' well being is utter suicide.
> 
> ...



A lot of people don't have an opinion on their representative and vote for him (or not at all) because he is already there. If we had to shuffle our feet more often and the information was more readily available (like websites like popvox as an example) I think we could bring the people back into the game. I mean over 90% stay in office every election. We do need to do something about the Tea party and people need to get more involved, but the government makes that rather difficult and people are too busy most of the time (or find it boring). I wish our politicians were more for the people, but the fact that it is a career track it is treated like a career, all about the money. That is why I feel like it is necessary for it to be temporary.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

7STRINGWARRIOR said:


> Even though IMO, the presidential election is pretty much irrelevant (I see a congress full of folks that need to get booted to the curb) and we may not even see one (if we go into war our current president can declare our country in the state of emergency and use the executive orders of martial law to cancel the election)
> 
> I'm supporting Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, although I believe it's irrelevant.



You do realize that the Constitution does not contain provisions for martial law, right? Even FDR had to get re-elected.

While Congress seems to be willing to throw a lot of power at the Executive to prosecute wars, I don't see ANY situation in which the President would be allowed to be able to declare his own term limits null and void.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2012)

Why so much support for Ron Paul.....


----------



## flint757 (Jul 22, 2012)

legalizing weed ^^^

Well the martial law thing is somewhat possible, but the problem is most wars have not been officially declared as such by congress.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Why so much support for Ron Paul.....



Because the current trend among young middle- and upper-class Americans is "fuck everyone else but me." That's pretty much, near as I can tell, the far-right extreme Libertarian platform.



flint757 said:


> legalizing weed ^^^
> 
> Well the martial law thing is somewhat possible, but the problem is most wars have not been officially declared as such by congress.



Uh, no, it's not. The Executive Branch does not have the power to abrogate the President's term limits, which are clearly written into the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (limiting the President to two terms) and Article II, Section 1 (limiting the length of a President's term to 4 years). It's one of the few things that is NOT ambiguous in the Constitution.

The fact that people can even consider that something like that may occur legally and Constitutionally shows the incredible, rampant ignorance regarding our nation's founding document.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 22, 2012)

I don't care enough to be an expert nor memorize it either. The reason some people think this was that FDR served 3 terms and was going on his 4th when he died. WWII was occurring around the same time so some draw that conclusion. The 22nd amendment though, I'm now aware, was written after his presidency and that is why he served so many terms while now a president cannot. I didn't look it up (until now) and that is something I've been told in the past so it isn't all that hard to believe that some (including myself) would have believed that since I believe WWII was the last officially declared war we were in. (correct me if I'm wrong)

The president does not declare war though so he could not do that without the support of congress anyhow, if that was the way it in fact worked.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

Man, social studies classes must really suck today  

I learned that shit in 3rd and 4th grade.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 22, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> Man, social studies classes must really suck today
> 
> I learned that shit in 3rd and 4th grade.



That doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it.

Assuming you're the cynical baby boomer I am sensing you are from that statement, you're missing a crucial component to your assertion about modern education standards. Apparently, a lot people from your era didn't learn the importance of education and upward mobility to the progression of a society either, since it's your era that is now legislating and allowing the dismantlement of the public school system you had the privilege to be a part of in your time throughunder-funding and dissolving teachers' rights or pensions.

Addressing people in a condescending tone as you just did is the main reason intelligence has become demonized by those without the fortune of a privileged life that allows such growth of the mind.


----------



## AwakenNoMore (Jul 22, 2012)

I can't honestly say I would vote for either main party, all they do is undermine the other one and distract from actually getting anything important done. All I hear is vocal diarrhea and shit smeared paragraphs. Its also not going to get any better without something drastic happening. Which sucks.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> That doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it.
> 
> Assuming you're the *cynical baby boomer *I am sensing you are from that statement, you're missing a crucial component to your assertion about modern education standards. Apparently, a lot people from your era didn't learn the importance of education and upward mobility to the progression of a society either, since it's your era that is now legislating and allowing the dismantlement of the public school system you had the privilege to be a part of in your time throughunder-funding and dissolving teachers' rights or pensions.
> 
> Addressing people in a condescending tone as you just did is the main reason intelligence has become demonized by those without the fortune of a privileged life that allows such growth of the mind.





I'm well under 30, dude. You don't have to yell at me about how things have been fucked up by our parents' generation. I'm living it right now.

That was really genuinely funny, though. I've been called many things, but a baby boomer is not one of them 

At the same time, though, my point is that there are a lot of fearmongering statements that are thrown around these days by people who do not have any idea what they are talking about. These statements are transparently false to someone with a basic understanding of the Constitution.

And it's really, really important that we ensure that students have a grasp of the Constitution from a young age. Because it's fundamental to our system of government, our country, and our society. It's genuinely shocking to me that a statement like "The president could declare martial law and suspend elections" could be viewed with any credibility whatsoever.

These are not fundamental concepts. These are things that I learned less than a decade and a half ago in my Social Studies and American History classes, in a public school.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 22, 2012)

TemjinStrife said:


> I'm well under 30, dude. You don't have to yell at me about how things have been fucked up by our parents' generation. I'm living it right now.
> 
> That was really genuinely funny, though. I've been called many things, but a baby boomer is not one of them
> 
> ...



I don't think coming off as a condescending douche is something to laugh about, but okay.

It doesn't matter what you think about anything to anyone once you start talking like that. Anyone in the world would be disinclined to respect your views when you don't respect theirs and blatantly insult their intelligence to boot.

Don't talk down to people if they're not doing the same to you.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> That doesn't mean you have to be an ass about it.
> 
> Assuming you're the cynical baby boomer I am sensing you are from that statement, you're missing a crucial component to your assertion about modern education standards. Apparently, a lot people from your era didn't learn the importance of education and upward mobility to the progression of a society either, since it's your era that is now legislating and allowing the dismantlement of the public school system you had the privilege to be a part of in your time throughunder-funding and dissolving teachers' rights or pensions.
> 
> Addressing people in a condescending tone as you just did is the main reason intelligence has become demonized by those without the fortune of a privileged life that allows such growth of the mind.



He's 26 according to his profile so off by a few years.  I wouldn't call missing one thing in the constitution rampant ignorance though. Condescension does tend to provoke people, but it's cool. It is true though that it is much harder for EVERYTHING to be taught in school. We did not go over everything in any of my grades. WWII and on got a lot less air time. Why? IDK. When I got to college it was the same problem they try and push a couple hundred years of history into a short period of time and my government classes did not actually involve the constitution, but more how it functions. Even if I was taught that it is not something I would have committed to memory because I'm an electrical engineering major, in other words don't give a shit about politics (enough to memorize everything that is) and will have no affect on my life. If what I said was true that would happen and now that I know it isn't it won't ever happen so it is moot. It isn't like if the entire population believes something all of a sudden constitutional experts, lawyers and the white house are going to say fuck it lets declare marshal law no one will ever know.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 22, 2012)

flint757 said:


> He's 26 according to his profile so off by a few years.  I wouldn't call missing one thing in the constitution rampant ignorance though. Condescension does tend to provoke people, but it's cool. It is true though that it is much harder for EVERYTHING to be taught in school. We did not go over everything in any of my grades. WWII and on got a lot less air time. Why? IDK. When I got to college it was the same problem they try and push a couple hundred years of history into a short period of time and my government classes did not actually involve the constitution, but more how it functions. Even if I was taught that it is not something I would have committed to memory because I'm an electrical engineering major, in other words don't give a shit about politics (enough to memorize everything that is) and will have no affect on my life. If what I said was true that would happen and now that I know it isn't it won't ever happen so it is moot. It isn't like if the entire population believes something all of a sudden constitutional experts, lawyers and the white house are going to say fuck it lets declare marshal law no one will ever know.



True education and inspiration doesn't start until college.

And what the fuck I looked everywhere for his age.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I don't think coming off as a condescending douche is something to laugh about, but okay.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you think about anything to anyone once you start talking like that. Anyone in the world would be disinclined to respect your views when you don't respect theirs and blatantly insult their intelligence to boot.
> 
> Don't talk down to people if they're not doing the same to you.



No he has a point, why would people make statements if they know they have little to no education about things?

This is like a certain avid Ron Paul supporter on this forum that could not comprehend how RP's ideal economy just would not work. The had absolutely no education in economics so WTF is he doing telling me how RP is a genius and gold standard 4 lyfe dawg? That's great if he supports it but when confronted with evidence he pulled the nah nah a boo boo I cant hear you so its not affecting me bullshit.

Seriously, I don't tell welders how to do shit because I dont know about it, so why are people surprised when someone like Josh who knows the law well refutes their statements? Of course he can be condescending (which he wasnt) because others were pretending they know things they don't.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 22, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> No he has a point, why would people make statements if they know they have little to no education about things?
> 
> This is like a certain avid Ron Paul supporter on this forum that could not comprehend how RP's ideal economy just would not work. The had absolutely no education in economics so WTF is he doing telling me how RP is a genius and gold standard 4 lyfe dawg? That's great if he supports it but when confronted with evidence he pulled the nah nah a boo boo I cant hear you so its not affecting me bullshit.
> 
> Seriously, I don't tell welders how to do shit because I dont know about it, so why are people surprised when someone like Josh who knows the law well refutes their statements? Of course he can be condescending (which he wasnt) because others were pretending they know things they don't.



...I was just thinking about how much better our country would be if ignorance wasn't an entire voting demographic during my evening poop. Point taken.

Honestly I'm sure I've been condescending on more than one occasion on this P & CE forum. I try to save it for when I myself and attacked the same way though.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jul 22, 2012)

I am always a condescending prick. Ma repz are on recharge but i will rep you once they recharge to get rid of that neg


----------



## TemjinStrife (Jul 22, 2012)

Yeah, I didn't mean to be a dick. I was just honestly shocked that people didn't know about term limits, which I learned about in public school, and even more surprised to be accused of being a "cynical baby boomer" 

As I've said before, education is an integral part of being a good citizen. Keeping yourself informed about both the current issues and the way that our society works is necessary for a democracy to function effectively, and I think that is one of the reasons things are so nasty in politics right now.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 23, 2012)

No I know about term limits and I know how long a term is I didn't need to learn it in school to know that you hear about it all the time. I did learn that in school, the only bit I was personally mistaken on was the fact that an election would not be skipped/delayed during specific circumstances. That bit of information has no bearing on my political or day-to-day life. Politics/government are just like any other subject matter some people no more than others. Not everyone on here may no as much about chemistry as I do, doesn't make them stupid. I'd say chemistry and physics have a more drastic effect on my life than most thing related to politics. Someone else hit the nail on the head our politicians are representing themselves these days and your only given a limited amount of options for people to vote on with only minor variations and to top it off they don't tell you what they are "really" going to do. If you don't vote they still get in and if you do your stuck with Bob 1, bob 2, bob 3, etc. My knowledge of anything isn't going to change that and if I REALLY need to know something it is just a click away. You are right that I should have bothered checking myself before making myself look like an idiot, but you could have also approached your response less like an ass so we're even.  The only thing politically relevant that everyone should have A LOT more knowledge on and don't is economics, not the constitution IMO. Like I said before unless someone is just trying to deceive me into doing something against my will I don't need to know the specifics this country hasn't hit that point just yet.


----------



## Treeunit212 (Jul 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> No I know about term limits and I know how long a term is I didn't need to learn it in school to know that you hear about it all the time. I did learn that in school, the only bit I was personally mistaken on was the fact that an election would not be skipped/delayed during specific circumstances. That bit of information has no bearing on my political or day-to-day life. Politics/government are just like any other subject matter some people no more than others. Not everyone on here may no as much about chemistry as I do, doesn't make them stupid. I'd say chemistry and physics have a more drastic effect on my life than most thing related to politics. Someone else hit the nail on the head our politicians are representing themselves these days and your only given a limited amount of options for people to vote on with only minor variations and to top it off they don't tell you what they are "really" going to do. If you don't vote they still get in and if you do your stuck with Bob 1, bob 2, bob 3, etc. My knowledge of anything isn't going to change that and if I REALLY need to know something it is just a click away. You are right that I should have bothered checking myself before making myself look like an idiot, but you could have also approached your response less like an ass so we're even.  The only thing politically relevant that everyone should have A LOT more knowledge on and don't is economics, not the constitution IMO. Like I said before unless someone is just trying to deceive me into doing something against my will I don't need to know the specifics this country hasn't hit that point just yet.



Right.

There's no rule in the books that states if there was a WWIII we could let a president go three terms to avoid any extra turmoil, although history shows that people don't like changing presidents in the middle of any major conflict, such as in 2004.


----------



## flint757 (Jul 29, 2012)

So does anyone even know who the 3rd party candidates are going to be?


----------



## jonahkemp (Aug 24, 2012)

Yes, I would vote libertarian. I think that they don't get much support vote-wise because everyone thinks "no one is gonna vote for them so I won't waste my vote"


----------



## Treeunit212 (Aug 24, 2012)

jonahkemp said:


> Yes, I would vote libertarian. I think that they don't get much support vote-wise because everyone thinks "no one is gonna vote for them so I won't waste my vote"



I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideological paradox. 

I mean, you've got the social freedoms and equality side, and you also have the small government, states rights and free market economics side. I don't see how those go together historically.

History is colored by a constant struggle for equality. Things like Civil Rights, the 13th/14th/19th Amendments for black and women's rights, etc. All of which were accomplished with the help of the Federal government by overruling state law and performing judicial activism. (oh no, judges looking at the constitution with a contemporary perspective?)

Now you can point to things like the Obama Administrations broken promise of Marijuana dispensary crackdowns, and I would agree that that's an overstep. But you can't deny the government's key role in social progress, ESPECIALLY when we're seeing a resurgence of sexist and racist laws being passed in a number of states.

As for economics, name a major industry that doesn't receive billions in Federal subsidies. The free market is long gone. 

I don't know, that's my take on Libertarianism. Not trying to attack your views or anything. I just can't vote for a party who's knight in shining armor thinks the Federal Government providing natural disaster relief is unconstitutional.


----------



## Semichastny (Aug 25, 2012)

Treeunit212 said:


> I've always seen Libertarianism as an ideological paradox.
> 
> I mean, you've got the social freedoms and equality side, and you also have the small government, states rights and free market economics side. I don't see how those go together historically.
> 
> ...



Government does good and bad things, Corporations do good and bad things. Some people are stuck within an outdated ideology designed to fuction in a world that has ceased to exist for many, many years. Libertarianism has some good points but in the end I feel it does not adequately address the issues we face in a modern world. I think its easy for people to forget that if it's not the federal government breathing down your neck, it would be the State government.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 25, 2012)

My primary issue with modern Libertarianism is it attempts to legitimize and proselytize a sort of selfish "I got mine, now fuck off" ideology.

It is important to have people advocating for smaller government, for states' rights, and for many other things, as it is necessary to prevent any branch of the government (state, Federal, judicial, Executive, legislative, etc.) from gaining too much influence. But, far too often those who espouse those arguments today go too far into actually taking things away from other citizens to benefit the one making the argument.

My other issue with modern libertarianism is that it is typically the states, the bastions of libertarian power, who created pervasive discriminatory regimes and place limits on their citizens' rights (such as the right to abortion, to family planning, or education.)


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 26, 2012)

I changed my mind. I think I'll vote for the other Galactic Empire.


----------

