Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

  On 8/24/2012 at 9:12 AM, marf said:

sounds like Romney has it in the bag according to this

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1822933.html

 

Fear not, Nate Silver calls BS on it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/23/1123481/-Nate-Silver-Calls-B-S-on-U-of-Colorado-Election-Prediction-Model

  On 8/24/2012 at 10:02 AM, compson said:

Also humans/US needs to learn to stop killing each other and create a system that doesn't perpetuate greed before we worry about animal cruelty, gay marriage, or whether or not our cars need to have better mpg (lol that "efficiency" is an issue in this country, "progressive technology! u damn liberal tree queers!"). These cultural issues that deal with macho traditional america vs. multiculturalism while morally cruel are a symptom of a much greater systemic problem. We need to treat the main problem here, the longer we wait and the longer we elect these half assed political actors and the longer our government takes to become efficient. Less focus on parties, people, platforms, religions, etc more focus on science, facts, and ideas. One doesn't set out to create mediocre art/music/etc, they do it cause they want to. We need people like that again in our government. We don't need no more 4 more years no more. yeaaaaaaaa

 

Sorry for being a dick here, but do you actually think it's the system which perpetuates greed (and all the other issues you quickly lump together)? And not the people itself, for instance? I guess society is a greedy robot who controls the helpless parts it is made out of. It's not the people, it's the system.

 

I've got a question for you: why do people vote for the republican party?

 

Also, which system? The corporate system? The voting system? Capitalism? Democracy? Culture (is that a system)?? Perhaps the nervous system? Or the cosmological system? Belief system?

 

I blame the Big Bang (and the Big Chill), btw.

 

People don't grow more intelligent overnight, so don't expect "the system" to do so. If you really want to help, you should do the following, IMO: read all the parties plans - at face value, regardless of what you know from the past - and choose the plan which is closest to your beliefs. Don't vote strategically. Follow the party closest to you beliefs and do that consistently. If more and more people will do that, the democracy might actually be able to repair itself from the bottom up. Otherwise people will keep on voting "strategically" for the plans they don't believe in. (No wonder people are getting cynical.) It's a loose loose option. The best outcome is that your least favorite option will not win. A strategic vote, is a vote based on fear. IMO. Restoring democracy begins with the voter. Not the system. Whatever that system might be. (IMOIMOIMOIMIOMIOIIOI)

Edited August 24, 2012 by goDel

Everyone I know who says their voting for Obama, almost always, is doing so because they loathe Romney and the batshit republicans. Yes, Obama would be a better choice between the two,but he is such a two faced liar. Anybody who paid attention in 2007-2011 knows about Obama breaking almost all of his promises. I'm mean this guy has to be the biggest bullshit artist in the modern era of politics. Our two party system, especially now with super packs, is perfect for controlling the masses. People will keep focusing on whatever bullshit talking points are floating around while the government becomes more controlling everyday.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Kilgore Trout

  On 8/22/2012 at 2:30 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Nope sorry. I stopped drinking the Paul koolaid long ago, and you should consider doing the same. Foreign policy is about the only thing that man has going for him.

woah chill out. i said im not a supporter of his. i just like his drug and war policies really. not voting for him but would still rather have him in the office.

  On 8/24/2012 at 10:15 AM, azatoth said:

  On 8/24/2012 at 9:12 AM, marf said:

sounds like Romney has it in the bag according to this

 

http://www.huffingto..._n_1822933.html

 

Fear not, Nate Silver calls BS on it. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/23/1123481/-Nate-Silver-Calls-B-S-on-U-of-Colorado-Election-Prediction-Model

Yeah I don't know about "in the bag", new NBC poll shows his support among blacks is within the margin of error, so basically zero.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html

  On 8/23/2012 at 11:17 AM, Iain C said:

  On 8/23/2012 at 7:18 AM, goDel said:

The more people voting for third partiers, the more chance those third partiers actually getting some political power. Look at friggin UK, for instance.

 

 

AAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. I don't think you have a clue about what's going on in this country.

 

It's true that I don't have a clue, but it's pretty factual that a third party is actually having some kind of political power, as opposed to the past. We can discuss all day what that power might actually entail, but these facts are there for everyone to see.

OK, first off - the Lib Dems aren't a third party as you understand it in the states. They have a number of safe seats throughout the country, and always received a decent amount of coverage in the media and voice in parliament. But that's not really relevant, because...

 

Since entering into the coalition government, they have managed to break practically every promise they made, completely failed to force through their two keystone policies (electoral and house of lords reform), and provided the parliamentary clout needed to ensure controversial Conservative Party policies get passed (including an increase in student tuition fees, a Conservative policy that the Lib Dems specifically promised not to allow in their manifesto).

 

They have ZERO political power beyond lending legitimacy to the Conservatives, and it's taken as granted by everyone (including Lib Dems) that they will be annihilated at the next election, never to be seen again.

What would you expect?

 

The people in the UK can be cynical about it and indeed, those puny LibDems might be gone by the next elections. But it's the first time this has actually happened. The political process in the UK is, from what I understand, very conservative. So, by it's nature, things won't change very fast. Especially when it comes to gaining political power. Political power is not something which can be switched on and off like a lightbulb. Take a note from those revolutions in the middle east, for instance. There are many people involved in the government on all kinds of levels. The changes you probably have in mind when you're thinking about changing politics might take 10 years to actually come to live. I might have no clue, but I'm seriously wondering how realistic your expectations are.

 

Patience is virtue when it comes to politics. Cynicism is the cheap road to a lack of change.

Imagine thinking that your choices were just "blindly support parliamentary democracy as it currently exists" OR "be a cynic and believe in nothing"

 

 

PS it's not the first time we've had a coalition government, we had them in both world wars, throughout the 1930s, and again in 1977. You could have found that out with 30 seconds on Google. Stop talking about things you know nothing about.

Ehm, those points have absolutely nothing to do with the argument I'm making. Thanks for avoiding any exchange of thought.

To be honest your last post made literally no sense to me anyway.

 

  Quote

Political power is not something which can be switched on and off like a lightbulb. Take a note from those revolutions in the middle east, for instance. There are many people involved in the government on all kinds of levels. The changes you probably have in mind when you're thinking about changing politics might take 10 years to actually come to live.

 

It's just a string of non-sequiturs. What argument ARE you making?

Change takes time.

No, I'm fairly sure that when it comes it will be sudden and violent.

*ignores middle east-point and all that jazz*

 

whatever. there's absolutely no point in trying to have some kind of argument.

What's going on in the Middle East? One authoritarian capitalist dictatorship replaced with another? Wow, the changes.

Well, the point is that despite violent and non-violent revolutions nothing much has changed. Some heads at the top of the pyramid of power have rolled, but the building still stands. (The power at the top of the pyramid is often exaggerated.) I'm not the first to mention that it takes years and years before those nations are functioning democracies.

"Functioning democracies" based on the western capitalist model? Where voting is a waste of your time and everyone bar a tiny elite are exploited and oppressed? You haven't explained why that's a good thing, or why that somehow makes voting for a third party (or anybody) a good idea.

 

You seem to think that if you just put up with a shit, broken system for long enough, it'll somehow fix itself. Perhaps I've misread you.

You can define "functioning democracy" any way you want to. You could also use the Chomsky definition, if you like.

 

 

This quote could give a rough idea.

  Quote

Democracy has lots of different dimensions. I mean, basically the question is to what extent do the people have a meaningful way of developing and articulating their own ideas and putting them forward in the political arena and controlling decisions. That's the general question.

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1996summer.htm

 

Anyways, enough of the details. The point still stands, i guess: it takes time. Regardless of how you define "functioning democracy".

i think both of you raise interesting aspects of the "Democracy: yay or nay?." argument.

 

Oddly enough, I think Metternich was absolutely spot on in his analysis that there is evolution in societal dynamics which influences government, regardless if those in power want it to or not. So he tends to reach the conclusion that a decent authoritarian establishment is one that "guides" societal evolution, i.e. praising and supporting cultural change, but to quell and quash change being forced dramatically (ie. rebellions/revolutionary movements). I disagree with the ethical conclusions he reaches, but I think he was a genius in realizing social reality is unstoppable, it can only be slowed down.

 

There have been plenty of violent revolutions that have possibly achieved little to nothing...for now. Remember, the French Revolution was seen as a ghastly blight on the very idea of democracy, the rule of the mob, the American Revolution perverted into an anarchical dystopia. But if we think about it, the French Revolution nonetheless had an irrefutably immense impact on the rest of the world, akin or perhaps overshadowing the Amer. Rev. in many aspects. With a revolution that immediately successful in its violence, a counter-revolutionary doctrine had to be created to understand what it is these monarchies were truly trying to preserve.

 

Now we have a new type of violence, to paraphrase Zizek, via social media and the ability to protest in ways unfathomable fifty years ago. The governments of the world, here too, are trying to either eliminate it altogether, or to apply censorship to "guide" social evolution. The interesting part that remains to be seen is whether the Arab Spring and other movements were but mere hiccups before the waterfall. If you put your thumb in a pipe, the water stops for a moment...but eventually the pressure is insurmountable.

Interesting points. I think the most interesting revolution in the Middle East isn't actually a revolution: the change within Iran. There's lots and lots of signs of turmoils within the governmental system. Much of these seem to come from the societal dynamics Metternich talks about.

 

Another interesting development is the situation in Europe. Although there isn't a particular societal dynamic pointing towards a tighter political union, the economic developments might be forcing the EU into that direction anyways. One could wonder what would happen when developments like these are forced upon an unwilling society. It is not going to look pretty, I can tell you that.

  On 8/24/2012 at 11:52 AM, goDel said:

  On 8/24/2012 at 10:02 AM, compson said:

Also humans/US needs to learn to stop killing each other and create a system that doesn't perpetuate greed before we worry about animal cruelty, gay marriage, or whether or not our cars need to have better mpg (lol that "efficiency" is an issue in this country, "progressive technology! u damn liberal tree queers!"). These cultural issues that deal with macho traditional america vs. multiculturalism while morally cruel are a symptom of a much greater systemic problem. We need to treat the main problem here, the longer we wait and the longer we elect these half assed political actors and the longer our government takes to become efficient. Less focus on parties, people, platforms, religions, etc more focus on science, facts, and ideas. One doesn't set out to create mediocre art/music/etc, they do it cause they want to. We need people like that again in our government. We don't need no more 4 more years no more. yeaaaaaaaa

 

Sorry for being a dick here, but do you actually think it's the system which perpetuates greed (and all the other issues you quickly lump together)? And not the people itself, for instance? I guess society is a greedy robot who controls the helpless parts it is made out of. It's not the people, it's the system.

 

People are just products of environment, so yes I really do think that the system perpetuates greed on a structural level. When you have 1 out of 2 Americans in poverty or low-income in a wealthy nation such as America that has an abundance of media that promotes violence, fame, and materialism, it perpetuates and directs humans to be greedy towards each other. If you had a society that was more forgiving on the bottom level, ie universal healthcare, affordable education, progressive taxation, and no drug war then you would have a more peaceful society.

Edited August 24, 2012 by compson

 

 

lol

People just products of the environment? That's a bit of an extreme point of view. Can you see any merit in Metternich's hypothesis's Smetty wrote about?

 

A society is not a one way road. It works in all kinds of ways. Sure you have some points I can agree with. The effects of universal healthcare, for instance. But the idea that every problem is a product of a faulty system is just taking things to extremes. If I understand you correct, in a world with an -in your eyes - perfect "system" something like the police would be redundant. People are products of the environment, and if the environment is perfect, so are the people within it? That'd be the consequence of your reasoning, right?

 

I disagree. People would be imperfect regardless of the environment. And something like a police would always be part of some kind of society.

  On 8/24/2012 at 9:07 PM, goDel said:

People just products of the environment? That's a bit of an extreme point of view. Can you see any merit in Metternich's hypothesis's Smetty wrote about?

 

A society is not a one way road. It works in all kinds of ways. Sure you have some points I can agree with. The effects of universal healthcare, for instance. But the idea that every problem is a product of a faulty system is just taking things to extremes. If I understand you correct, in a world with an -in your eyes - perfect "system" something like the police would be redundant. People are products of the environment, and if the environment is perfect, so are the people within it? That'd be the consequence of your reasoning, right?

 

I disagree. People would be imperfect regardless of the environment. And something like a police would always be part of some kind of society.

 

Where did I say perfect? Or that there would be no police?

 

All I said initially is issues like gay marriage, animal cruelty, abortion, etc are a product of the current system because they are wedge cultural issues that only continue to exists based on a lack of education. They are symptoms of a larger systemic problem which deals with the two party system (progressive taxation, accountability of power, drug war, etc). The current system is practically serving to divide people, which is not good for society.

Edited August 24, 2012 by compson

well first of all, OBAMA IS A TYRANNY, yes i'm using it as a noun

 

Watch this video to see why, this guy lays it out pretty clearly

 

 

Lil B aint got shit on Rehdog