Moved From OT: Political threads on these forums

[Craig234]

:thumbsup: I couldn't agree more. Which is why I don't vote along party lines. I'm registered as republican but I voted for Obama twice. I also voted to get rid of governor Joe Davis and I voted for the Governator.

Only a moron votes along party lines.

Actually, I quite disagree with you. I think people newer to politics feel more that way, like there is something wrong with agreeing with one 'side', but that's a fallacy.

Turns out, the two 'sides' aren't so much just 'different people with different views each of which is right half the time'. They are representing different interests.

One side wants the workers to have more, the other workers to have less so the owners have more. One side is more for plaintiffs, the other more for defendants. And so on.

Turns out, you might actually get opinions on issues and find that one 'side' is more in agreement with your positions and that you are more in favor of fighting for them.

And there's not only nothing wrong with that - that's the only thing that makes sense for you then.

Voting a more 'mixed' ballot is what's idiotic then.

'But vote the person, not the party' someone newer to politics might say. Because they don't realize just how much party determines their positions and votes.

So when Congress has hundreds of issues with almost hundreds of Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, then even if you really think one guy in the election 'seems nice' or 'seems honest' or you 'want to have a beer with them' or they're snappy with insulting their opponent or whatever, that voting for them is also supporting their party and its agenda. That it helps give control of Congress to that party.

So even if you like, say, a Republican better than a Democrat, you have to ask, do you also like the Republican Party controlling Congress more or the Democrats?

Same with the Presidency. When Bush was elected, you also got Cheney and a large army of old Republican neocons running the Pentagon, you got someone who wanted to destroy PBS running that, you got hundreds of people appointed to run agencies that have oversight of industries who were lobbyists and executives from those industries, you got all kinds of policies that came along with the party.

It's really a pretty uninformed position to hold up voting for 'both sides' as some badge of honor proving you think for yourself, and more the opposite, suggesting you don't appreciate the importance of the party's agendas and instead are swayed by the superficial marketing and 'image building' of the candidates designed for just that purpose, to fool you.

You mention two votes - one being to pick Schwarzeneggar over Davis. Schwarzeneggar's election was engineered by a small group of very partisan figures who saw a chance to use his celebrity to get 'their guy' who would be a big improvement for 'their interests' over the Democrat, and stirred up a lot of resentment over a relatively modest DMV fee to whip up a mob type fury about the extra cost.

And it worked. And it turned out Schwarzeneggar was really crappy at governing, but he did attempt to shift money to the wealthy. Very quickly he found the state short of money - by the same amount those Davis fees would have covered. So, hey, let's cut things good for the people instead. And IIRC he ended up raising DMV fees again anyway.

Davis was a dedicated guy to be a 'public servant'. He was a lot better at it than Schwarzeneggar - you might recall he stayed to 'train' Schwarzeneggar for quite a while for which he was thanked. I don't think a vote for right-wing movie star disaster Schwarzeneggar, fighting against California's people in many ways, is a vote to be proud of.

It's a little like bragging that you donated both to the campaign FOR abortion right and the campaign AGAINST them and saying 'isn't that great, I'm not partisan'.

I've critized 'centrists' for an exagerrated notion of it being good to vote for 'both sides' not because they understand each issue but because they don't.

I think the fundamental issue in politics is how to distribute wealth (not whether, wealth witll always have a distribution, but what that distribution should be). There are a few other issues - especially for Democrats, like human rights - but then most issues are to represent some interest or to get votes.

 

[Craig234]

Oh - Pretty sure Bob Kennedy's plan was to help enough that people can stand on their own feet...


...it is a topic subject to much argument whether the majority might actually do so.

I think that's right.

Times were different then, and there was a lot of support for that - it was still a battle.

His brother John had sort of mastered the ability to push a liberal message wrapped in language appealing to centrists. Bobby was just a more passionate liberal who could still do that but more directly. He was the one out visiting the poorest people holding their children if not crying for their poverty - but he had cold war credentials as well.

One of my favorite examples of that is the title of a Kennedy speech collection, the "strategy of peace". By calling it "strategy of", it has that cold war, pro-military ring to it that makes the center who likes to be 'strong in the cold war' like the phrase - but the operative word there is "peace". A president at the height of the cold war pushing for peace. A difference is Bobby would simply say he was for peace, nevermind that 'strategy of' packaging, and he would do so with a lot of eloquence.

Bobby was a leader taking on the harder issues. He went to Japan to criticize the young communist movement there, ignoring some sanger; and he went to South Africa on a visit that infuriated the government to critize apartheid there, met with massive acclaim by the blacks especially.

He'd been at the heart of the fight against the mafia and the Cuban Missile Crisis, he'd been the attorney general who led the fight against racism in the south.

Just as his brother, he'd changed a lot.

If you go back, you'll find FDR by his fourth inaugural address had come out for a second bill of rights for economics designed to greatly help people to the middle class. It's the most pro-people agenda I can ever remember advocated by a President. Bobby was also pushing for providing more help for the poor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Actually, I quite disagree with you. I think people newer to politics feel more that way, like there is something wrong with agreeing with one 'side', but that's a fallacy.

Turns out, the two 'sides' aren't so much just 'different people with different views each of which is right half the time'. They are representing different interests.

One side wants the workers to have more, the other workers to have less so the owners have more. One side is more for plaintiffs, the other more for defendants. And so on.

Turns out, you might actually get opinions on issues and find that one 'side' is more in agreement with your positions and that you are more in favor of fighting for them.

And there's not only nothing wrong with that - that's the only thing that makes sense for you then.

Voting a more 'mixed' ballot is what's idiotic then.

'But vote the person, not the party' someone newer to politics might say. Because they don't realize just how much party determines their positions and votes.

So when Congress has hundreds of issues with almost hundreds of Democrats on one side and Republicans on the other, then even if you really think one guy in the election 'seems nice' or 'seems honest' or you 'want to have a beer with them' or they're snappy with insulting their opponent or whatever, that voting for them is also supporting their party and its agenda. That it helps give control of Congress to that party.

So even if you like, say, a Republican better than a Democrat, you have to ask, do you also like the Republican Party controlling Congress more or the Democrats?

Same with the Presidency. When Bush was elected, you also got Cheney and a large army of old Republican neocons running the Pentagon, you got someone who wanted to destroy PBS running that, you got hundreds of people appointed to run agencies that have oversight of industries who were lobbyists and executives from those industries, you got all kinds of policies that came along with the party.

It's really a pretty uninformed position to hold up voting for 'both sides' as some badge of honor proving you think for yourself, and more the opposite, suggesting you don't appreciate the importance of the party's agendas and instead are swayed by the superficial marketing and 'image building' of the candidates designed for just that purpose, to fool you.

You mention two votes - one being to pick Schwarzeneggar over Davis. Schwarzeneggar's election was engineered by a small group of very partisan figures who saw a chance to use his celebrity to get 'their guy' who would be a big improvement for 'their interests' over the Democrat, and stirred up a lot of resentment over a relatively modest DMV fee to whip up a mob type fury about the extra cost.

And it worked. And it turned out Schwarzeneggar was really crappy at governing, but he did attempt to shift money to the wealthy. Very quickly he found the state short of money - by the same amount those Davis fees would have covered. So, hey, let's cut things good for the people instead. And IIRC he ended up raising DMV fees again anyway.

Davis was a dedicated guy to be a 'public servant'. He was a lot better at it than Schwarzeneggar - you might recall he stayed to 'train' Schwarzeneggar for quite a while for which he was thanked. I don't think a vote for right-wing movie star disaster Schwarzeneggar, fighting against California's people in many ways, is a vote to be proud of.

It's a little like bragging that you donated both to the campaign FOR abortion right and the campaign AGAINST them and saying 'isn't that great, I'm not partisan'.

I've critized 'centrists' for an exagerrated notion of it being good to vote for 'both sides' not because they understand each issue but because they don't.

I think the fundamental issue in politics is how to distribute wealth (not whether, wealth witll always have a distribution, but what that distribution should be). There are a few other issues - especially for Democrats, like human rights - but then most issues are to represent some interest or to get votes.

Being verbose does not make for truth.

Craig and others are absorbed and marginalized. Their chosen party controls and dismisses them because the system allows only Democrats or Republicans to win. The Two know people like these will support them to prevent the opposing side from returning.

People with different ideas than mainstream have no voice in reality. That would be Craig an myself so I'm not picking on him. The difference between us is I won't be used.

 

[McLovin]

:thumbsup: I couldn't agree more. Which is why I don't vote along party lines. I'm registered as republican but I voted for Obama twice. I also voted to get rid of governor Joe Davis and I voted for the Governator.

Only a moron votes along party lines.

:thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

:thumbsup:

So, a democratic voter who fell for the George Bush lines about a "humble" foreign policy and being a "compassionate conservative" is the height of who you admire?

I'd disagree, and say that voter made a mistake, was not well informed or committed to the principles that made them a Democrat, and it's not a good thing they fall for a pitch.

As I said, we have a lot of people with an exaggerated idea of that being a good thing.

There seems with those people to be a sort of paranoia about parties, as if they're some evil entities out to destroy the country (when only one is).

It's sort of like, 'I'm a REAL American, I never vote for a party!'

When that's very misguided and throws away the power to organize and support some policies.

If you're in favor of a wide array of policies benefitting the people - education, a safety net, safe products, workers' rights and a fair share of productivity's profits, the right to sue if wronged, more freedom of religion and speech, less corporate wrongs, and so on, why WOULDN'T you want to support the party who supports those policies?

Why is it terrible for you to say 'I support those polices, and I'm glad there's an organized group for voters to support for those policies'?

It doesn't mean you agree with them on everything; it doesn't mean you can't support election reform to try to have more than two parties.

It seems paranoid and misguided. You should fear the law being changed to allow unlimited money in our elections, not the fact you might agree mostly with one party's agenda.

A lot of people have misguided idea about even that. The most popular misconception I see is 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative'.

That slogan is used by many to assert that they're for Democrats on the former and Republicans on the latter.

Thing is, it's a slogan showing ignorance. What does 'fiscally conservative' mean anyway?

Does it mean we were wrong to provide more education, to build a national highway system, to put a man on the moon, to have a safety net and reduce poverty?

Or it is the marketing myth about crazy Democrats who like to burn money because that smells good?

The history rather contradicts the notion of these Republican fiscal conservatives.

Take the deficit. The nation never saw the massive peacetime debt until Ronald Reagan. Continued under Bush 41. The president that reversed that? The next Democrat, Clinton. But wasn't that because Repulicans made him in control of Congress? No, it was't. His first two years, Democrats had Congress and the deficit was brought down the same amount as later years. Clinton's budget-balancing budget got zero Republican votes - based on false claims what it would cause - and it passed by one vote. That same Republican congress stayed in power with George Bush - and the debt skyrocketed back up. Under Obama, even recovering the economy needing stimulus, the deficit is down by more than half.

Or take Republicans' fixation on removing the rules for businesses. Reagan did it for S&L's giving us the S&L crisis. They supported - Democrats shared the blame - letting Wall Street do things Roosevelt had banned them from, because they could make even more profit by putting the system at risk, and they did, and it crashed. Are these really the policies of 'fiscal conservatives'? No.

Or take the Republicans' special spending interests - excessive tax cuts for the most wealthy, the defense welfare industry, corporate subsidies, and so on. You do realize that spending under Bush - the 'fiscal conservative' - shot up even after his cutting 'liberal' programs for the people? That his 'fiscal conservatism' had him refusing to put his wars in the budget?

Take their Medicare Part D policy, led by a Republican who resigned weeks after it passed to a cushy position heading big pharma lobbying for $2 million a year. They made a very specific choice to put in a provision prohibiting the government from using its buying power to negotiate any discount to the list prices for drugs, which made the cost hundreds of bllions higher, to give those tax dollars for nothing to their biggest donor industry, big pharma. While setting it up so many seniors actually had to pay more than before.

Now, that's fiscal conservatism.

That program was Bush's #2 domestic priority his first term. #1 were his tax cuts - which benefitted the wealthy far more, and which all were borrowed - we couldn't pay for one dollar of them - sold on lies that they would only come from 'part of the surplus' while he said he'd not only continue surpluses, but eliminate the national debt in 10 years. Actually his tax cuts simply skyrocketed the deficit.

But many people will happily chant 'social liberal, fiscal conservative' and defend voting for both parties with that slogan, in ignorance.

Sorry, I don't think that's something to admire as you do. Do you have the guts to support one side you agree with is a better question, or do you have to 'vote for both' a lot?

 

[mikeymikec]

One side wants the workers to have more, the other workers to have less so the owners have more. One side is more for plaintiffs, the other more for defendants. And so on.

Citation needed. While I'm sure that one can find say one example for say the UK Labour party per occasion that it has been in government that it did something supposedly "for the people" (the most recent example I can think of is the national minimum wage), the rest of the time they're indistinguishable from any other UK government.

Same goes for the current UK government - they got rid of ID cards, but they're continuing the great UK tradition for surveillance. In a decade or two's time I'm half-expecting colon cams for reasons of 'national security'.

Each governing party does one or two things that supposedly identifies it as being 'that way inclined', then reverts to standard government behaviour the rest of the time.

 

[Garet Jax]

Would it be too much to ask for people to have a political discussion on these forums without bringing the usual partisan bullshit into it?

It seems to me that every political thread here reaches its conclusion with multiple posts including things like "that's just what I'd expect from you liberals / conservatives to say" in a derisive tone, which reminds me of the sort of person who says "I vote xyz because that's whom I've voted for for 30 years!" (or because that's who their dad and granddad voted for). I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't look for even a vaguely interesting or informed opinion from that sort of person because they've made it their business not to listen to others or keep up with current affairs with a vaguely open mind.

IT'S NOT A CONTEST OR SPORT. In the history of politics no political party has ever been absolutely right in everything it says and does. If anything, politics is looking more like "whatever political party we vote for, we get mostly the same policies anyway", so treating a political party or a political philosophy as if it holds absolute truth or 'the correct way' is pure idiocy.

Democracy is not about being seen to support the winning side. It is meant to be about the elected representatives supporting the will of the majority of the people. The idea of democracy is based on the assumption that the people aren't a bunch of mindless drones who swallow everything that their preferred political party / politically-aligned news source shovels into them.

This is exactly the type of post I would expect from a political activist.

 

[Garet Jax]

:thumbsup: I couldn't agree more. Which is why I don't vote along party lines. I'm registered as republican but I voted for Obama twice. I also voted to get rid of governor Joe Davis and I voted for the Governator.

Only a moron votes along party lines.

You lost all credibility when you said you voted for him twice. Once I get, but you clearly don't learn from your mistakes.

 

[surfsatwerk]

You lost all credibility when you said you voted for him twice. Once I get, but you clearly don't learn from your mistakes.

Obligatory "because the other guy was so much better" post

 

[mikeymikec]

This is exactly the type of post I would expect from a political activist.

This is a type of post I would expect from... someone who has nothing to say?




Time (past time?) to move this to P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director