I see what you did there. Is that enough acknowledgment? You sum it up pretty William, the state of politics today means that you literally fuck the losing party. But as Lou pointed out to me, nobody but Obama is divisive and vindictive.
I would suggest that we delay the celebrations until we see positive results from the Republican Congress. This is a great opportunity for the GOP to prove that they are indeed capable of directing the needed reforms which will straighten out our country. And yes, Obama still has veto power. An interesting future lies ahead.
There in lies the problem. One party is bad, the other worse. One promises change and the change is for the worse. We bring back the other party for another chance. Time for change we can really believe in, a new party based on the principals of the constitution.
Tired of voting against candidates instead of for a candidate.
In seriousness Lou, I have to keep going back to a point that I make all the time. Namely that the government we have accurately reflects the will of the people who send it there. According to this article (http://online.wsj.com/articles/election-2014-results-show-limits-of-big-data-1415585721) midterm numbers showed 40.9% of eligible voters voted in 2010 mid terms and that number dropped to 36.4%. In 06, I didnt remotely feel that Democrats had a mandate. They were basically handed the reigns because a small group of eligible voters (40.2%) showed up vented their outrage in a now classically American attitude of, "Throw all the bums out".
Our discussion on whether or not Obama is divisive kind of sums up the state of politics in America, it's not about substance. The Democrats in this election were basically campaigning on a platform of "please don't punish me for belonging to the party Obama does". This is just as ridiculous as the "Not George Bush" campaigns. You and I both may want a third party, but to me, it seems pretty clear that the majority in the tiny slice that votes every two years could care less about anything other than venting their spleen and bitching about how much the party in power sucks.
This kind of goes along with your Schizophrenia post, so I will comment on both here. I don’t think that the electorate is as mixed up as it might appear. In a simple statement: People may be more liberal in their views of social mores but that does not make them socialist. Fewer people are buying into the idea, particularly in a globalized world, that a sovereign government can never go broke. People understand budgets, they understand the need for restraint and they understand the need to revaluate priorities. As Lou said, once a program is in place, killing it or even culling poor implementation becomes all but impossible. So people are looking for who they ‘think’ will come closer to that fiscal discipline… only, at the end of the day, the Republicans have priorities of their own. In voting for Republicans, they also know that they shoot themselves in the foot with respect to allowing liberty to dictate social mores as republicans are just as quick to write restrictive laws Democrats. Give people a candidate that respects law, the constitution and fiscal discipline; give that candidate the media access and ballot access and encourage people to vote their hearts and I think you will see a truly shocked democratic and republican power structure. There is a place for a very strong, outward looking defence and the compassion to take care of our truly needy but neither the military industrial complex or the welfare state are the way to go…. You give Americans a candidate that is honest , offers a true alternative to the existing power structure, and allowed to run as an equal contender by the press and state voting bodies, I think you will see a rather amazing voter turnout.
"You give Americans a candidate that is honest , offers a true alternative to the existing power structure, and allowed to run as an equal contender by the press and state voting bodies, I think you will see a rather amazing voter turnout."
TS, I am not being sarcastic. What you wrote here sounds perfect and I think it's what a lot of us long for. How do you make it happen? In pro sports, it may be one thing to stop going to games to watch a shitty team. In our political system, when you walk away and choose not to vote, you are saying you are okay to let 36% of eligible voters decide how the country should be run. The political ads are pure slime. These ads are paid for by interests who don't live in the state and no connection there whatsoever. Do we dare use law to limit their free speech?
Again TS, I am not being sarcastic or bashing you. I agree 100%. I just dont' hear a realistic plan to get there. Whether you read the Art of War or Saul Alinski (which countless Republicans now have), a universal message is that you don't get to choose your opponent, your landscape and your rules. It's one thing to detest both the system and the pathway to it, but if we stand on the sidelines and complain that we dont' like what is on the menu, I don't see how it changes. At the least, I don't see how it changes unless you tweak the rules in such a way that you take away competitive advantage from those who have enormous money. (In advance, I realize Obama choose not to do this against McCain. This is not a strong enough stand alone point)
I missed your post until now... sorry for the delay. I still owe phunky a response but for the life of me I can't find the thread....
Firstly I have never stood on the sidelines. I have never voted for a winning candidate, but I have never stood on the sidelines. This is a problem that many independents need to resolve within themselves that a vote for a losing candidate is not a wasted vote. Inch by inch, more and more people are voting and voicing support for various independent candidates. The process is excruciatingly slow and with the aggressiveness of change we are seeing in mainstream government, perhaps we will never see independent candidates pose direct competition to the two major parties. The biggest frustration that I have in this election cycle is the rhetoric pointed at democrats for stifling the debate and negative campaigning by republicans. While for the most part I agree that it happened , it burns me up that the GOP used the very same tactics with Ron Paul within their own party.
I guess that my biggest frustration is with people themselves. You may call me far right wing but I don’t think I am. I grew up in integrated schools, briefly had a black girlfriend, had colleagues who were gay(closeted but comfortable enough to tell me) and have had an occasional toke periodically throughout my life. Not your typical right wing teetotaller… but I also have a strong sense of country, work, responsibility and values that do not follow the liberal ethos… or at least the way they approach fixes to society’s problems. Many people express that type of sentiment but are deathly afraid of casting a vote outside the ‘national’ parties… They fall of the “a vote for ‘x’ a vote for the enemy”.
Until people take a stand on the election process the way they have on … say… Gay rights, nothing will change. One of the biggest things that election officials could do to level the playing field is to force the elimination of party titles in campaign ads and certainly on ballots. Vocal people could, I think, force the latter relatively easily. At best it makes the electorate pay more attention to what the candidates say and at worst, votes of ‘low information’ voters would become random selections scattered on a ballot sheet. Democrats and Republicans fear even small changes for their own reasons. The internet has levelled the playing field for independents and its effective use counters a lot of campaign money. I am not as active on different sites as I use to be but throwing an occasional libertarian bomb into a typical Sloan discussion has given me pleasure and the different perspective, I would like to think, resonates with some…
On October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”
I see what you did there. Is that enough acknowledgment? You sum it up pretty William, the state of politics today means that you literally fuck the losing party. But as Lou pointed out to me, nobody but Obama is divisive and vindictive.
ReplyDeleteNothing like taking conversation out of context adding your own spin.
DeleteHave your eye on a new job in the media?
Look at the 2008 map.
DeleteWhat happened in 2009?
1773-2009
The whole point of politics these days is to avoid ever having something remain in context! No media job for me though.
DeleteWilliam, what happened in 2009?
An organic leaderless never ending movement.
Delete1773-2009
I would suggest that we delay the celebrations until we see positive results from the Republican Congress. This is a great opportunity for the GOP to prove that they are indeed capable of directing the needed reforms which will straighten out our country. And yes, Obama still has veto power. An interesting future lies ahead.
ReplyDeleteRoger that! Both of these political monstrosities have the power to inflict and have already inflicted many problems on the people of this country
DeleteThere in lies the problem. One party is bad, the other worse. One promises change and the change is for the worse. We bring back the other party for another chance. Time for change we can really believe in, a new party based on the principals of the constitution.
DeleteTired of voting against candidates instead of for a candidate.
In seriousness Lou, I have to keep going back to a point that I make all the time. Namely that the government we have accurately reflects the will of the people who send it there. According to this article (http://online.wsj.com/articles/election-2014-results-show-limits-of-big-data-1415585721) midterm numbers showed 40.9% of eligible voters voted in 2010 mid terms and that number dropped to 36.4%. In 06, I didnt remotely feel that Democrats had a mandate. They were basically handed the reigns because a small group of eligible voters (40.2%) showed up vented their outrage in a now classically American attitude of, "Throw all the bums out".
DeleteOur discussion on whether or not Obama is divisive kind of sums up the state of politics in America, it's not about substance. The Democrats in this election were basically campaigning on a platform of "please don't punish me for belonging to the party Obama does". This is just as ridiculous as the "Not George Bush" campaigns. You and I both may want a third party, but to me, it seems pretty clear that the majority in the tiny slice that votes every two years could care less about anything other than venting their spleen and bitching about how much the party in power sucks.
We get what we vote for.
This kind of goes along with your Schizophrenia post, so I will comment on both here. I don’t think that the electorate is as mixed up as it might appear. In a simple statement: People may be more liberal in their views of social mores but that does not make them socialist. Fewer people are buying into the idea, particularly in a globalized world, that a sovereign government can never go broke. People understand budgets, they understand the need for restraint and they understand the need to revaluate priorities. As Lou said, once a program is in place, killing it or even culling poor implementation becomes all but impossible. So people are looking for who they ‘think’ will come closer to that fiscal discipline… only, at the end of the day, the Republicans have priorities of their own.
DeleteIn voting for Republicans, they also know that they shoot themselves in the foot with respect to allowing liberty to dictate social mores as republicans are just as quick to write restrictive laws Democrats. Give people a candidate that respects law, the constitution and fiscal discipline; give that candidate the media access and ballot access and encourage people to vote their hearts and I think you will see a truly shocked democratic and republican power structure. There is a place for a very strong, outward looking defence and the compassion to take care of our truly needy but neither the military industrial complex or the welfare state are the way to go….
You give Americans a candidate that is honest , offers a true alternative to the existing power structure, and allowed to run as an equal contender by the press and state voting bodies, I think you will see a rather amazing voter turnout.
"You give Americans a candidate that is honest , offers a true alternative to the existing power structure, and allowed to run as an equal contender by the press and state voting bodies, I think you will see a rather amazing voter turnout."
DeleteTS, I am not being sarcastic. What you wrote here sounds perfect and I think it's what a lot of us long for. How do you make it happen? In pro sports, it may be one thing to stop going to games to watch a shitty team. In our political system, when you walk away and choose not to vote, you are saying you are okay to let 36% of eligible voters decide how the country should be run. The political ads are pure slime. These ads are paid for by interests who don't live in the state and no connection there whatsoever. Do we dare use law to limit their free speech?
Again TS, I am not being sarcastic or bashing you. I agree 100%. I just dont' hear a realistic plan to get there. Whether you read the Art of War or Saul Alinski (which countless Republicans now have), a universal message is that you don't get to choose your opponent, your landscape and your rules. It's one thing to detest both the system and the pathway to it, but if we stand on the sidelines and complain that we dont' like what is on the menu, I don't see how it changes. At the least, I don't see how it changes unless you tweak the rules in such a way that you take away competitive advantage from those who have enormous money. (In advance, I realize Obama choose not to do this against McCain. This is not a strong enough stand alone point)
Thoughts?
I missed your post until now... sorry for the delay. I still owe phunky a response but for the life of me I can't find the thread....
DeleteFirstly I have never stood on the sidelines. I have never voted for a winning candidate, but I have never stood on the sidelines. This is a problem that many independents need to resolve within themselves that a vote for a losing candidate is not a wasted vote. Inch by inch, more and more people are voting and voicing support for various independent candidates. The process is excruciatingly slow and with the aggressiveness of change we are seeing in mainstream government, perhaps we will never see independent candidates pose direct competition to the two major parties. The biggest frustration that I have in this election cycle is the rhetoric pointed at democrats for stifling the debate and negative campaigning by republicans. While for the most part I agree that it happened , it burns me up that the GOP used the very same tactics with Ron Paul within their own party.
I guess that my biggest frustration is with people themselves. You may call me far right wing but I don’t think I am. I grew up in integrated schools, briefly had a black girlfriend, had colleagues who were gay(closeted but comfortable enough to tell me) and have had an occasional toke periodically throughout my life. Not your typical right wing teetotaller… but I also have a strong sense of country, work, responsibility and values that do not follow the liberal ethos… or at least the way they approach fixes to society’s problems. Many people express that type of sentiment but are deathly afraid of casting a vote outside the ‘national’ parties… They fall of the “a vote for ‘x’ a vote for the enemy”.
Until people take a stand on the election process the way they have on … say… Gay rights, nothing will change. One of the biggest things that election officials could do to level the playing field is to force the elimination of party titles in campaign ads and certainly on ballots. Vocal people could, I think, force the latter relatively easily. At best it makes the electorate pay more attention to what the candidates say and at worst, votes of ‘low information’ voters would become random selections scattered on a ballot sheet. Democrats and Republicans fear even small changes for their own reasons. The internet has levelled the playing field for independents and its effective use counters a lot of campaign money. I am not as active on different sites as I use to be but throwing an occasional libertarian bomb into a typical Sloan discussion has given me pleasure and the different perspective, I would like to think, resonates with some…
Make that last line say Salon and my dislexia will be corrected...
DeleteOn October 17, 2013, President Obama said: “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”
ReplyDelete