F1fth wrote:I think it's more of a issue of "What you say" vs. "How you say it." Contentwise, I think he makes some good points. Does the meaning reconcile with the language he uses? Meh, perhaps, perhaps not. It's definitely not what I would say, but then again this is the internet and I've seen worse.
I guess I'd rather people saying meaningful things in a rude way than pointless things in a polite way, if that makes any sense.
It does. Sultan confuses me... he seems like a smart guy, but he keeps relying on personal insults to make his point. Which, in my mind, is less effective. But, I'm not a fan of the bullies - even the internet bullies.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
PLAYER57832 wrote:It is true that other countries have more parties, but most of those countries have different forms of representation all around... you often don't just vote for local candidates.
But, keep in mind too, that many of those countries are smaller than most US states. (not all, but many).
I understand that, and it makes some sense as to why we don't have more viable political parties. However, unfortunately I think the Democrats and Republicans, because they control the government, have the power to (and have used the power to) entrench themselves.
An unrelated example - The Libertarian Party presidential candidate in the last election is hardly known. So was the Green Party candidate. Why? Some might say it's because no one will vote for those people. However, the Libertarian Party candidate requested to be included in all debates between Obama and McCain, but was not included. Why not? It's not like the Libertarian Party (or the Green Party) is going to be ridiculous or disrupt the debate.
The Liberaterian Party was not included for a few reasons. Money, the fact that a three way debate is harder to control, more easily heads off into tangents. Also, they just don't have the voter base that either of the 2 other parties.
IN the US, it is the parties themselves that shift, rather than new parties springing up. Spector was correct when he said that the Republican party is moving further and further to the right. So have the Democrats, just not quite as far as the Republicans (thankfully).
Money should have nothing to do with it, I know it does, but that does not mean it's a desireable state of affairs. Also: if German tv moderators can control 5 or 6 way debates, I think even the average American could manage a 3 way debate.
Maybe they don't have the voter base because they never get invited to the debates...
GabonX wrote:Oh Dave, it's well known that politics in this country has a cyclical nature. In the last election the public chose to vote for the more extreme candidate as opposed to the moderate.
i love how insanely far to the right america's idea of "moderate" has become. but even by american standards, mccain went waaaay off to the right during the general campaign.
The pandering to the extreme conservative base has been the biggest reason republicans are going to lose the 2010 election and probably a few more after that.
Most fundamentally of all, the McCain campaign radically overestimated the importance of appealing to the base. House Republicans may be replicating their mistake. Self-described conservative Republicans represent only about 20 percent of the population. This base is not necessarily becoming smaller; it's still alive and kicking. What is true, however, is that the (1) base has never been sufficient to form a winning electoral coalition, and (2) that there are fewer and fewer non-base (e.g. moderates, libertarian Republicans, Republican leaning-independents). As these moderates have fled the GOP, the party's electoral fortunes have tanked. But simultaneously, they have had less and less influence on the Republican message.
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
And further, because so much of those ideas are based upon religion, they have no desire to even listen to any other view, because it is "against their beliefs". This is the definition of why theocracy is bad.
We need to remember WHY all those "inconvenient" protections and freedoms have become a part of our Constitution and Federal law.
MeDeFe wrote:Maybe they don't have the voter base because they never get invited to the debates...
US campaigns drag on for so long by the time debates actually happen, most people already have their minds made up.
Other parties exist and take members. Occasionally one gets large enough to be called a "third party", but the sheer numbers involved mean they tend to die off before they reach a majority. Usually, what happens is that as they get more popular, one of the other parties morphs to take on more and more of the policies of the "third party".
Its far more likely that one of the other parties will morph into something close to Liberaterians than that Liberaterians will become a third party.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat May 02, 2009 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Thus the Republicans, arguably, are in something of a death spiral. The more conservative, partisan, and strident their message becomes, the more they alienate non-base Republicans. But the more they alienate non-base Republicans, the fewer of them are left to worry about appeasing. Thus, their message becomes continually more appealing to the base -- but more conservative, partisan, and strident to the rest of us. And the process loops back upon itself.
And further, because so much of those ideas are based upon religion, they have no desire to even listen to any other view, because it is "against their beliefs".
Which is the reason why it's so hard to break the loop. They see no middle ground so the only way to keep them happy is giving in to more and more of their demands.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
pimpdave wrote:The Democrats will squash you like the gnats you are. Republicans are always buzzing around getting all in a flap about something stupid, like flag burning or destroying the 1st and 4th amendments, torturing people, placing policy before science, and getting rich off blatant malfeasance.
Go home, tend to your farms. Forget this war, you've lost.
If you listen really hard whilst you read this, you can hear the slightly deranged Hannoverian voice of George III in your head...
Nobunaga wrote:... Though Specter's switch hurts on the large scale his defection may assist the Republicans on one front.
... The opening in the Supreme Court, Specter is on the Judicial Committee. For nominees to progress past committee level for a general vote they must be voted on in committee. Those 10 votes must include at least one vote from the "minority party".
... Specter guaranteed that needed vote for passing nominees. That guarantee is gone now.
... But we'll have to wait and see I suppose.
... Speaking of the opening in the court, I actually got an idiot at work to bet me on it. If it's a white male, he gets 50 dollars. If it's anything else, I get $10.
