Chic, IL Totally Politikul

Discussion in 'Mid West Regional Discussion' started by Bosh_Talk, Feb 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4
    Well, I know that having an online political discussion can breed danger, but I figured....what the hay. I can always shut it down if any Republicans post gibberish. HA! I keed the Republicans!! Which I have license to do since I voted a straight GOP ticket from 1990 to 2002.

    Ha! That's a good one! Not that I don't respect Nader for his 2000 run, but both parties in turn learned their lessons about the repercussions of letting anyone know that Independents even exist (ie. Perot costing Bush Sr. '92 and Nader costing Gore '00).

    Though a 2008 Nader campaign is completely impotent and practically a joke...anyone who doesn't know what Nader was about 8 years ago should read his 2000 Declaration Speech. Though it's full of detail it's a brilliant regarding closing the "democracy gap" between control that the corporate government exercises over our political government.

    If your attention span is too short to read a speech, then these videos'll pretty much sum up why the Nader's, Kucinich's, Gravel's & Paul's don't stand a chance.....

    Part 1
    Part 2

    Here's a short video about this year's debates showing why candidates not favored by the party have little to no chance to be heard.

    D'



  2. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
    I?m a poli sci major, so I know just how heated these political debates can get.
    I?ll try to keep it short as I could easily rant at length about Nader.

    I?ve heard a number of my political friends say some to like ?If X candidate doesn?t get the nomination, I?m voting for a third party.?

    I want to be very clear on one point: Your vote is not a sign of protest.
    What I mean by this is; your vote is one very small tool to help influence the direction of government.

    If you are unhappy will Republicans, if you are unhappy with Democrats, a vote for Nader will in no way influence their respective positions.

    Because of the American election system (namely winner takes all elections, congressional redistricting, and the two party system) Nader has absolutely NO chance of ever becoming president.

    I know there are some who would say I?m just a tool for the political system, or that I?m trying to suppress the third party representation; I?m not. I?m simply stating facts and some of my particular opinions.
  3. Le_Penguin Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 4
    Didn't I just link this a few days ago?

    I'm constantly torn between developing opinions on various candidates vs. the recurring realization that most of it doesn't really matter. Presidential appointment is less about leadership; it's mainly just a barometer for how much the American public will let their government/corporations get away with out in the open.

    Still, even in a fake democracy, we should still be allowed to pretend, so Obama in '08.

    "If you scratch a cynic, underneath you?ll find a disappointed idealist."
  4. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4
    Yeah, I'm with George Carlin on that one. Not voting definitely does not mean that you don't have a right to complain (regardless of what the Femme says). If I have to pay taxes, then I have a right to complain.


    By your logic then, if my vote is so insignificant, then why should vote at all? More importantly, as Thoreau said: "Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already."

    As far as I see it, voting for a lesser but ?electable? candidate is the equivalent of ?taking a deal? in a court case where you plead "guilty" to get a lighter sentence. In other words you may avoid going to prison, but you throw your integrity out the window by doing so. Granted, losing your integrity and not being in prison is probably a deal most people are willing to live with. Of course, Thoreau chose to sit in jail rather than pay taxes to support an unjust war.

    My analogy doesn?t completely hold up, as I?m sure it could be argued that all of the people who didn?t ?take the deal? and voted Nader in 2000 put all of us in prison for 8 years, and you?d probably be hard-pressed to find a Green who would rather have Bush than Gore, even if their first choice was Nader.

    It's pathetic that any voter feels pressured to "take a deal" when they draw the curtain, but I'm not going to condemn them for it either. I'll just keep trying to convince them to vote their conscious and not their fear.


    So Jadeen, you say you're majoring in Unemployment eh?

    D'
  5. Sithman Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 6, 1999
    star 7
    That makes me want to pull my hair out. It reminds me of 4 years spent in film school where people would casually interject something to tune of this into an argument: "Well, I'm a film major so I understand how movies work..."

    [face_sick]
  6. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4

    Well, he did predict that you would come in here and stir $#1t up....so I guess the tuition money isn't fully going to waste.


    D'
  7. Le_Penguin Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 4
    I've quoted A. Whitney Brown a lot, especially in election years, but he bears repeating here: "we as a nation have moved from voting for the candidate we like the most to voting for the candidate we dislike the least." In effect, we're not so much casting our vote for as we are against (perfect example: John "I'm not much but I'm not Bush" Kerry. I could go on blahblahblah about how the politics of fear have gotten us here but I'm tired and anyone reading this has probably heard it all already (most likely from me.)


    ?Waterboarding, that's what America does to its prisoners now. Dunking them in water until they confess. Of course, you have to remember: we uncovered a lot of witches that way, so credit where credit is due.?
  8. darthgoat Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 6, 2001
    star 4
    Still voting for Not Sure.
  9. Lothos Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2002
    star 2
    Him? But his $#!^'s all retarded, and he talks like a %@&.
  10. DarthAstuart Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 4
    Um...except that majoring in film requires the study of just over 100 years' worth of work, much of it populist entertainment that honestly really isn't THAT hard to understand, even from a technical standpoint...and political science is a discipline that could be argued to reach back at least a couple thousand years, on the low end.

    In other words, you're both majoring in Unemployment. No worries--I majored in Unemployment too, with a concentration in Corporate Sellout Jobs to Pay a Mortgage.
  11. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
    I never said I knew any thing, just what a land mind this would be. And I never said "take the deal", in fact I didn't say whom I thought anyone should vote for.

    What, in essence, I did say was:

    If you agree with a major party 75% of the time, and you agree with a third party 95% of the time, voting for the third party will not force the major party change its platform to make up the difference.

    In my heart of hearts, I?d choose Ron Paul. The amount of money he?s raised as a ?minor? candidate is a testament to how powerful his ideals are. But as a reasonable I know, Ron Paul?s money does not equal votes and it certainly doesn?t equal a nomination. (Thank God for that at least).
    So what am I to do? Vote for the man I know can?t win, or vote for someone that might and could use my vote in a tight election. I choose the latter, with a few provisos.

    I made calls to campaigns, I wrote letters, I listened to debates, I did whatever I could to gain as much information as I could to make my decision.

    I won?t say who I picked, and the average person doesn?t care enough to bother with the research. I only hope that people put at least some thought into their vote.
  12. Hazmatt Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 4
    Hey! A new place I can say what I've said a thousand times before: the real problem is the 2-party system. Why is it that we have 50 people to choose from for Miss America but only 2 choices for president? And they're BOTH politicians! They spend most of their time ensuring that they keep their job instead of DOING their job. Obama may not have a long political track record, but for me that's a plus.

  13. darthgoat Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 6, 2001
    star 4
    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for racism and bigotry.

    http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

    The bottom line is your vote does not matter. Democracy in this country is horribly broken.
  14. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4
    The Ron Paul RESOLution will not be televised.

    Though the guy who makes these videos is obviously a freakshow...he squarely nails what Ron Paul is about.


    Edit: (after seeing Goat's post) Amen brother! However, I'm all for Paul taking splitting the Republican vote. He'll do more damage to McCain than Nader will do to ClintBama. Paul represents the conservatives who have some sort of social conscious and have been convinced that liberalizing markets is the key to everything. That makes them slightly smarter than the average Republican I guess.

    D'
  15. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
    The two party system is a result of winner take all elections, and non-proportional representation, and to a lesser extent gerrymandering.
    The theory behind this is, a clear majority is more able to fulfill the needs of government than a legislature locked in factional infighting.
    If you look to the UK?s parliament you can see this isn?t really the case. Coalition governments almost always have to be formed, arguably making governance more harmonious.

    The problem with importing that to the US is that is would require a complete overhaul if not rewrite of the constitution.
  16. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4
  17. Le_Penguin Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 4
    This thread was the best idea ever!

    On an unrelated note, have any geek sites made a "Keeping up with the Cardassians" parody video yet?
  18. darthgoat Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 6, 2001
    star 4
  19. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
  20. Hazmatt Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 4
    Yeah, because our current system NEVER gets locked in factional infighting. Wait, what's the opposite of that? Oh, right, they ALWAYS get locked in factional infighting.
    Who said anything about the Constitution? I'm not talking about the Senate, Congress, or the presidency. I'm saying get rid of Republicans and Democrats. They are not Constitutionally protected species.

    On a slightly separate note, I think that (Diebold issues aside) we are reaching an era in which we could evolve from a republic into a democracy. Tighten up electronic voting a bit (yes, yes, I know there are errors, thanks for pointing that out, but paper ballots worked so well in Florida, didn't they?) and we could actually have the people elect a president instead of the Electoral College. Wouldn't THAT be something? Instead of "American Idol", have "American Leadership". Start off with 100 or so candidates and whittle them down. Take away campaign funds and advertising and put them on an independant TV show, so everyone is equal and the differences in policy and skills are what we see, no matter how much pot they smoked in college. If a candidate had to get up and talk for 10 minutes on policy and answer questions every week with no external help, we might be able to weed out some idiots.
  21. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
    My point exactly! The THEORY in practice doesn?t always work.

    What I meant was: To make a 3rd, 4th, 5th? party viable, major changes in election policy and the fundamentals of the US government have to be made.
    The Democratic and Republican parties are protected (constitutionally) in as much as our current system does not reward second place.

    To enact the kind of change you?re talking about; we?d not only need to change the constitution, but the existing democrats and republicans would have to be willing to enact it, effectively signing their political death warrants.
  22. Bosh_Talk Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 29, 2000
    star 4
    Your posts look less like discussion and more like factoids cut n' pasted from the margins of an introductory "American Government" or "Comparative Politics" textbook.


    We just need to get rid of that pesky Constitution. Instead of saying "We The People..." the new one should read "We the People..." only this time actually be written by them.


    Try some Tigerbalm.

    D'
    "Next?"
  23. Jadeen451 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Feb 22, 2008
  24. darthgoat Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 6, 2001
    star 4
    Well actually that is not the case. The parties, Republican and Democratic, are technically NOT protected by the Constitution.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#pparty

    Full Wikipedia article on The Constitution.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

    Full Constitution text:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

    Would that be so bad? I'm up for some fresh direction and fresh leadership. Time for some fresh blood and fresh tactics. This place is getting ridiculous.
  25. Hazmatt Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 4
    OK, so we're saying the same thing, but it appears you think this is a good thing and I think it's a horrible, bad problem that needs to be fixed.

    Fine, I'll admit, I don't have the Constitution memorized. Can you point me to the parts that need to be re-written? Keep in mind, I am not saying add a 3rd or 4th party, I am saying eliminate parties. I am so sick of hearing "Republicans did this" and "Democrats are this". WE ARE ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Maybe we should be concerned about what will benefit the country, not what will benefit "my" party.

    Please explain to me how this is in anyway a bad thing.

    Fine. I realize that I am wearing my Rose Colored Goggles, but is this really a bad thing? Having the leadership and laws of a place actually being represented by a majority of the people that live there? MADNESS!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.