OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[licker]

Originally Posted by Edratman

The predominant problem with that attitude is that door #3 has failed to establish itself as a viable alternative at this point in time. This shortcoming on the part of door #3, and in my opinion the onus is really on door #3, reduces those who choose that option as very minor fringe dissenters.

The country has a past history of new political parties. The Republican party came into existance in the 1850's as an anti-slavery party. The Progressive party, usually known as the Bull Moose party arose in the early 1900's, but didn't generate significent legs.

I agree that one or more new political options are required. But today they do not exist and those who consider voting for the insignificent alternatives are not really dissenters, but merely non-voters in a different cloak.

nonsense.

Those who continue to propagate the current two party system are either sheep, or delusional enough to think that the lessor of two evils is still somehow worth voting for.

The problem is not with the candidates per se. To be sure neither Obama nor McCain are by default bad people, and neither are they crazy or socialists, or whatever other ridiculous smears have been concocted to fed the media.

The problem is with the system as it CURRENTLY exists. Its meaningless to talk about 1850 or 1900, there is no comparison to the current conditions surrounding how candidates are allowed access to the media, much less access to debates or other public avenues to present their message.

MONEY and POWER are all that we see today, and the RNC and DNC don't want to see it change. Why are no 3rd party candidates allowed to appear in the debates? Do you know when this happened? Do you know why this happened?

The league of women voters used to coordinate the debates, but dropped it as the dnc and rnc began to try to control the events and shape them into the meaningless sound clip fests they have become. The organization which controls the debates today doesn't allow 3rd party candidates to even get a sniff at participation.

So honestly, how would you know if these 3rd party candidates are worth listening to or not? Probably just because you've bought the lies the media and politicians would have you believe.

The governance of this country is a complete joke, and it doesn't matter who pretends they are in charge the end result is the same, 2 parties, 2 candidates saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then simply doing whatever they damn well please since there is no accountability for any of them.

The only way out of this is to break the 2 party stranglehold, and you don't do that by continuing to vote for those 2 parties, you don't do it by not voting (that's completely asinine). You do it by voting for a 3rd party, and giving some of your time and even money to supporting and educating others on the reasons why the 2 party system in this country is slowly but surely destroying it.

[chrispedersen]

nonsense.

Those who continue to propagate the current two party system are either sheep, or delusional enough to think that the lessor of two evils is still somehow worth voting for.


Nonsense yourself.

I've studied enough politics to have a minor in it. And have been around the world and studied various forms of government. The two party system has advantages (and disadvantages) over a multi party system and I for one am more than content in it.

I am actually surprised to see so many mccain supporters - and somewhat heartened by it. Youth and online tends to be strongly in favor of Obama - perhaps gamers are more rational (or conservative).

[AreaOfEffect]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I am actually surprised to see so many mccain supporters - and somewhat heartened by it. Youth and online tends to be strongly in favor of Obama - perhaps gamers are more rational (or conservative).

Are you implying that those who don't vote for McCain are somehow less rational. Not only is that implication not sound, it is also invalid.

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I would be happy to have Palin as my governor, senator or representative. Just as most of her constituents are. Despite your opinion of her, prior to the start of this election campaign she had the highest sustained favorability rating of any governer in history.

Your last statement sounds like a canned comment, but I'll indulge. I see little connection between favorablility and qualification. Please explain why she is suitable for any political position.

[rabelais]

Oy, Politics.

I have an actual button with Spendios Cthulhu slogan.

It is true that the parties, as game theory would suggest, are less different than we would like, but ever since reagan got elected in 1980, after making a deal to *delay* the release of the Iranian hostages, and then getting caught giving them arms as the back end of a quid pro quo, it is VERY apparent that the parties are not the same.

The previously unimaginable horror show that Chimpy, {Gombe division} Inc. (err, I mean the Bush administration) has ushered in is just the second go around farce.

The funny thing about wanting the flee the country post-bush is ...that as a friend of mine pointed out, we don't have to move, very soon we'll be living in Peronist Brazil.

My wife and I have already voted for Obama in texas. (HAHAHA... pointless I know) He may disappoint us, or prove incapable of dislodging the corporate overlordship once he gets in.... but the certainty of disaster and perpetual war with McCain and his VP "W-in-a-skirt" makes it not a difficult choice.

Particularly as the republicans stole the last two elections, have gratuitously killed over a million iraqis and have nothing but obfuscation, vote suppression and racist-dog whistle fear-mongering to recommend them. Plus the McCain of this campaign makes Mitt Romney look principled.

We have a 4 month old... the world will be bad enough when he grows up, ...we don't have to make it worse by pretending political choices don't matter, assuming you believe the election isn't controlled by a consortium of Di-e-boldic imps inside the voting machines.

Conservatism is one thing, I think history has proven conservatives are almost always wrong, but it's plausible in its no longer practiced Burkean form... these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists.

And that's all I've got to say about that....

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by rabelais

Oy, Politics.

I have an actual button with Spendios Cthulhu slogan.

It is true that the parties, as game theory would suggest, are less different than we would like, but ever since reagan got elected in 1980, after making a deal to *delay* the release of the Iranian hostages, and then getting caught giving them arms as the back end of a quid pro quo, it is VERY apparent that the parties are not the same.

The previously unimaginable horror show that Chimpy, {Gombe division} Inc. (err, I mean the Bush administration) has ushered in is just the second go around farce.

The funny thing about wanting the flee the country post-bush is ...that as a friend of mine pointed out, we don't have to move, very soon we'll be living in Peronist Brazil.

My wife and I have already voted for Obama in texas. (HAHAHA... pointless I know) He may disappoint us, or prove incapable of dislodging the corporate overlordship once he gets in.... but the certainty of disaster and perpetual war with McCain and his VP "W-in-a-skirt" makes it not a difficult choice.

Particularly as the republicans stole the last two elections, have gratuitously killed over a million iraqis and have nothing but obfuscation, vote suppression and racist-dog whistle fear-mongering to recommend them. Plus the McCain of this campaign makes Mitt Romney look principled.

We have a 4 month old... the world will be bad enough when he grows up, ...we don't have to make it worse by pretending political choices don't matter, assuming you believe the election isn't controlled by a consortium of Di-e-boldic imps inside the voting machines.

Conservatism is one thing, I think history has proven conservatives are almost always wrong, but it's plausible in its no longer practiced Burkean form... these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists.

And that's all I've got to say about that....

I find this post to be so offensive as to almost be beyond words.

We live in a social contract. Denigrating people that believe differently than you - hardly bodes well for civic discourse.

Saying such things as 'the republicans stole the elections', conservatives are almost always wrong', 'these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists' is immature, offenseive, and demonstrably wrong.

I find it particularly galling that leftists make arguments such as RRegan delayed the release of the hostages, Republicans stole the last two elections, the world trade centers were a government plot - without the merest shred of evidence.

[rabelais]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

I find this post to be so offensive as to almost be beyond words.

We live in a social contract. Denigrating people that believe differently than you - hardly bodes well for civic discourse.

Saying such things as 'the republicans stole the elections', conservatives are almost always wrong', 'these people aren't conservatives, they are plutocratic fascists' is immature, offenseive, and demonstrably wrong.

I find it particularly galling that leftists make arguments such as RRegan delayed the release of the hostages, Republicans stole the last two elections, the world trade centers were a government plot - without the merest shred of evidence.

Heh. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this... triumph of hope over experience explains so many things...

The increasingly obvious attempts of the GOP to suppress votes and violate the constitution which is the legal basis of our social contract makes your civic discourse ref-working laughably moot. Look at history since say, well, ever start with hunter gatherers if you like... the liberals (those in favor of agriculture, staying in one place long enough to ferment grains... or in favor of heliocentrism, public sanitation, natural selection, universal suffrage, or whatever the era happened to bring, have nearly always been right. Even the uber-liberals of yesteryear (Jefferson, Lincoln) seem bizarrely conservative by today's standards. Wait 30 years and see if gay marriage is still an issue, assuming civilization doesn't go all MadMaxish.

Saying true things may be impolite, but immature is a much higher standard.

In any case I think Obama is WAY more mature than I am, and conspicuously more so than McCain except neuro-degeneratively.

I said nothing about 9/11... other than I hope the goat book gets a central display case in W's presidential library, I suppose.

Did you miss the eighties or the last eight years? What I said about Reagan is not factually controversial... and the data on the elections is pretty compelling.... check out RFK jr writings, or bradblog...be interesting to see if the media episteme changes once cheney and addington are out of office.

What is conservative about the bush doctrine or monster deficits,the unitary executive, or... well almost anything they've done that wasn't cynically throwing a bone to the fundies?

Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unfair. But the current republican party has so violated the trust of the country that calling them out for their unprecedentedly bad behavior is really the least we should do.... it's ironic that the nigh-whimsical impeachment of clinton for bull****ting about private marital infidelity should have insulated bush from impeachment for truly world-historic crimes, at least in terms of trashing the united states.

Now I really need to work on that CBM Man pretender, if you wish to continue discussing my hypertrophic sense of alarm and civic indignation send me a PM? I think we're upsetting Gandalf.

Rabe

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by rabelais

Heh. I can't believe I'm going to respond to this... triumph of hope over experience explains so many things...

The increasingly obvious attempts of the GOP to suppress votes and violate the constitution which is the legal basis of our social contract makes your civic discourse ref-working laughably moot. Look at history since say, well, ever start with hunter gatherers if you like... the liberals (those in favor of agriculture, staying in one place long enough to ferment grains... or in favor of heliocentrism, public sanitation, natural selection, universal suffrage, or whatever the era happened to bring, have nearly always been right. Even the uber-liberals of yesteryear (Jefferson, Lincoln) seem bizarrely conservative by today's standards. Wait 30 years and see if gay marriage is still an issue, assuming civilization doesn't go all MadMaxish.

Saying true things may be impolite, but immature is a much higher standard.

In any case I think Obama is WAY more mature than I am, and conspicuously more so than McCain except neuro-degeneratively.

I said nothing about 9/11... other than I hope the goat book gets a central display case in W's presidential library, I suppose.

Did you miss the eighties or the last eight years? What I said about Reagan is not factually controversial... and the data on the elections is pretty compelling.... check out RFK jr writings, or bradblog...be interesting to see if the media episteme changes once cheney and addington are out of office.

What is conservative about the bush doctrine or monster deficits,the unitary executive, or... well almost anything they've done that wasn't cynically throwing a bone to the fundies?

Look, I'm sorry if you think I'm being unfair. But the current republican party has so violated the trust of the country that calling them out for their unprecedentedly bad behavior is really the least we should do.... it's ironic that the nigh-whimsical impeachment of clinton for bull****ting about private marital infidelity should have insulated bush from impeachment for truly world-historic crimes, at least in terms of trashing the united states.

Now I really need to work on that CBM Man pretender, if you wish to continue discussing my hypertrophic sense of alarm and civic indignation send me a PM? I think we're upsetting Gandalf.

Rabe

I have never claimed that either party had a monopoly on virtue. Motivating your voter group to vote - and making it seem invincible and surpressing the vote of your opponents is the point of election - as long as its legal.

For every scandal of surpression I can name you one of fictitious voters - such as the famous daly machine in chicago - the kennedy machine in massachussets - cynthia mckinney bussing thousands of supporters to the polls after they were closed in Atlanta.

The republican party hasn't violated the trust of the country any more or less egregiously than the democrats did. Clinton perjured himself under oath - and it was proved and that was far worse than anything any republican has been proven to do.

You don't like the republicans - I get it - but this constant, weird, leftist schism between our government and our people is whats unprecedented.

Like it or not, part of the social contract is - we elected a president - now - until you can vote him out or impeach him - act like he *is* your president, it is your congress.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

Are you implying that those who don't vote for McCain are somehow less rational. Not only is that implication not sound, it is also invalid.

Your last statement sounds like a canned comment, but I'll indulge. I see little connection between favorablility and qualification. Please explain why she is suitable for any political position.

Make a choice. Which are we arguing qualifications or suitability?

You were asking people to investigate the candidates, thinking perhaps that if people did they would find Palin an absolutely unsuitable candidate.

Arguing qualifications for a moment - obviously, she met the qualifications. Our founding fathers put their faith in the common folk - specifically did not *want* a ruling elite, recall?

As for why palin is suitable - lets see. Renegotiated deal with the oil companies to extract HIGHER royalties from oil companies.
Broke with her own party to get a corrupt party official indicted.

And before you start spouting untruths about her, lets just lay to rest some internet fallacies, as debunked by snopes:
-Palin has never sought to have books banned, or burned.
-Has been praised by *many* of her political opponents for *not* advancing a prolife agenda.
-Did not cut funding for special needs kids - or education at all.

Finally, you seem to think that being popular is not germane. To the contrary, the ability to satisfy people across the political spectrum means that you address their common concerns and needs. It means that people believe you effectively address their concerns.

It is not the sole criteria for judging a political candidate -but how your opponents view you (favorably) is a pretty good indicator.

Now.. since you bring up the question of qualifications....
Palin has been mayor for something like 7 years, and governor for two or three.

Obama has.... good speeches - and exactly zero executive experience. So if you believe Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.. exactly how do you believe Barry Sotuero (you know, Baracks real name, before he changed it (as he admits in his book dreams of my father) to appeal to minorities) is qualified to be President?

[DonCorazon]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

Now.. since you bring up the question of qualifications....
Palin has been mayor for something like 7 years, and governor for two or three.

Obama has.... good speeches - and exactly zero executive experience. So if you believe Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.. exactly how do you believe Barry Sotuero (you know, Baracks real name, before he changed it (as he admits in his book dreams of my father) to appeal to minorities) is qualified to be President?

While I am more concerned about a potential president's intelligence and character than specific experience, since I doubt any job prepares you to be president, I would just highlight for consideration that Obama has been a US senator for four years and state senator for 7 years representing a state of 12 million, while Palin has been governor of a state of 600,000 for two years and mayor for 6 years of a city of 10,000.

Obama was a civil rights attorney that graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, and was president of the Harvard Law Review. Palin was a sports reporter, went to a number of schools and graduated with a degree in communications from the University of Idaho.

If I had those two resumes in front of me, I know who I would chose to be president.