Could you be any more obtuse in ignoring his point of only two candidates with any chance of winning?
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Whether Ron Paul's particular stance may not be 100% right, your stance is 100% wrong on both issues.
If legalizing weed is wrong, please explain how it's current illegality is good for the US.
And how exactly do you propose to prevent the housing market from crumbling? It already has. You and your bumbling politicians have had your chance and fucked everything up. Let somebody else have a crack at it.
I mean this criticism constructively.
The 'independants' are a lot more of the problem than they realize.
- They're the ones who can't make a clear choice between the two parties, when nowadays, one of those parties is clearly far more for the general public than the other.
- They're the ones who dismiss any policy strongly pushed by one party only, as 'partisan' and therefore wrong, not asking if it's a good policy
- They frequently oversimplify issues - every issue has some 'one right answer' good for the nation supposedly, but actually a lot of policies are choosing between which part of the nation to serve, and there are a lot more tradeoffs than they acknowledge. They also seem to fall for the propaganda too much (e.g., 'trickle-down economics').
- They're the swing voters who gave us Nixon over Humphrey, Reagan over Carter (say what you will, he didn't make terrorist armies in Central America, skyrocket the deficit, and trade missiles for hostages illegally to fund said terrorist armies, and he ad energy policy as a top priority), and Bush over Gore. But for Ross Perot, they'd probably have given us Bush 41's second term over Clinton, too (though I'm guilty on that count too, having voted for Perot in 1992, for his deficit reduction position).
- They're often quite smug in condemning anyone who has decided that one of the parties is mostly correct, instead of saying they both have to be partly right.
Everyone agrees, for example, that Medicare and SS need tweaking. You don't say how you want to tweak them.
The right wants to tweak them by privatizing them so that they lose the political effect of the public giving them credit for them, and to turn them into huge generators of tax dollars going to the profits of the ownership class. If the average American sees a big decrease in the benefits, oh well.
The left wants to tweak them to keep them sustainable and providing needed benefits with the least impacting tradeoffs, e.g., raise retirement age or adjust COL increases.
There are plenty of other options too, including the controversial issue of the tradeoffs in putting money into the stock market or other investments for higher risk/return.
Those issues aren't settled just with 'put America First', there are more substantive tradeoffs needed.
I rarely see the 'independants' pay much attention to things like who are the real backers of each party. They seem pre-occupied with the 'people qualities' in candidates.
Your own post is one good example of the problem, the way it closes, by equally blaming "both sides", without much real commentary or suggestion.
Power doesn't work that way - you don't just say "please, powerful class, sit out an election or two while the public gets its needs met."
Do you shop at companies with better policies for the nation, who have better labor policies? Do you support independant media to counter corporate media? Etc.
The middle and poorer classes in American are squandering their political power by not being more organized, letting themselves be split into each half countering the other's vote by being divided on "wedge" essues like welfare and gay marriage and such, robbing them of a unified vote on the real issues of wealth in the nation. The "independants" are right in the middle of the problem - there are clear sides, and no good excuse not to be taking a side IMO.
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
Craig - long post so I will just give a short answer. I tried to stay out of "either you are with us - Demo or Rep- pick one" attitude.
Clear sides? Let see, just pick one US Senate race going right now <from the TV ads>.
Incumbent = OMG, the challenger will vote to private SS and cut 1/2 of benefits for the elders.
Challenger = Oh no, the incumbent did vote SS benefits for illegal immigrants. Incumbent is the bad one. Change is in order for a new Senator.
None of them are talking about how to fix the SS problem without afraid of losing the votes of the AARP crowd.
You want me <or us indepepents> to pick either one of those clowns as clear side? Typical polictics as usual.
There is no "simple answer" to any of the US ailments as I stated before, that's why I said no band-aid quick fixes. You, I, the man behinds the tree, and everyone knows it to fix our problems, we have to take painful medicines <fixes> in the long term. There are tons of bi partisian suggestions but none of the policians want to touch them.
If any of suggestions are in the planning stage, both sides will attack with half truths and scare tactics to kill it.
That's why many of us are independents, not because we don't care or don't know any better, we don't want to associate with either party.
Just take the posts in PnN for example, the tone, the my party is better than yours, the bickering, fighting, and on and on.....that's why I don't post in here much.
Clear sides? Let see, just pick one US Senate race going right now <from the TV ads>.
Incumbent = OMG, the challenger will vote to private SS and cut 1/2 of benefits for the elders.
Challenger = Oh no, the incumbent did vote SS benefits for illegal immigrants. Incumbent is the bad one. Change is in order for a new Senator.
None of them are talking about how to fix the SS problem without afraid of losing the votes of the AARP crowd.
You want me <or us indepepents> to pick either one of those clowns as clear side? Typical polictics as usual.
There is no "simple answer" to any of the US ailments as I stated before, that's why I said no band-aid quick fixes. You, I, the man behinds the tree, and everyone knows it to fix our problems, we have to take painful medicines <fixes> in the long term. There are tons of bi partisian suggestions but none of the policians want to touch them.
If any of suggestions are in the planning stage, both sides will attack with half truths and scare tactics to kill it.
That's why many of us are independents, not because we don't care or don't know any better, we don't want to associate with either party.
Just take the posts in PnN for example, the tone, the my party is better than yours, the bickering, fighting, and on and on.....that's why I don't post in here much.
You mention the campaign ads. IMO, those are worthless and I don't suggest you use them, on either side.
I'll give you an example - there's a propsition #7 in California that affects energy. Both sides are claiming that the other is secretly trying to sneak something in.
You can't begin to make sense of the issue from the ads. I'm going to do some research by looking at what analysts I think are saying something right, are saying about the 'real' backers. It's usually not that hard to find, since there are millions on each side and only people with a reason give millions, you can get info on the real 'interests' usually.
I expect that I'll find out the info and then have a pretty clear which side to vote for. That's what you need to do when there's a question, IMO.
But taking your example - you can mostly determine what you need on SS by party.
Social Security is the crown jewel for democrats - the gift that keeps on giving politically for them as well as a program that closely aligns with their values of helping the needy.
Republicans, as I laid out, have every reason from politics to graft to want to screw up Social Security, it's a top priority for them to do so.
So you would need an awfully damned good reason to consider voting for the Republican Senator if you care about SS.
If you suffer from the delusion that they are 'just two people' where you can have no idea on their positions on central party issues like SS from their party affiliation, I beg to differ.
There are a few exceptions, but you would pretty much already know they were, if they were, like Lincoln Chaffee was understood to be a Republicans who voted liberally.
Do you have any idea what 'fix' you want for SS?
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
So, you're basically saying all independents should vote Democrat?
Well, frankly, yes, but I'm not putting it that way so as to let those who just happen to like getting screwed, or who are the lucky few at the top (on top?) be included too.
I didn't want to turn it into a post with a long case how the current Republican Party is the enemy of the American poor and middle - rather, I wanted to say it more generally and let him reach his own conclusions after looking at the party. I wasn't arguing the case for democrats, but rather raising problems with the independants.
Analogy: you know how a parent sees their daughter choosing whether to date the local crack dealer (he has a nice car!), or a good guy? The parent knows better usually than to say which to choose. Instead, they try to help the girl choose with a comment like, "who do you think will treat you respectfully, based on how you see them treat other girls?"
With a question like that, the girl is likely to make a better choice. This is a case where the topic wasn't 'who do I think has the best policies', and I'll leave that analysis to him.
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
As a legal imigrant who came here with nothing but clothes on my back and used to live under Communist rule, I am <and most of sucessful immigrants like myself> scare of the "helping the poor/needy" mantra.
Like I said in my op, I stay out of the pick one party or else. Guess we will see how things turn out in November.
Edit: I don't have time to type what I "think" are the best ways to solve SS <maybe later tonight>. I know one thing for sure. If we are doing nothing and continue the same way as we are now, SS will not be there.
Well, I'd be interested to hear what you found was useful for you having opportunity here.
Democrats want to actually help the poor, not to have bad programs that do harm.
You say you 'stay out of pick one party'; the question I raised is why. When the differences are so clear, why do you not see one as better than the other enough to side with it?
One reason - and I don't get the impression you fit in it - is people who just don't bother to get informed at all.
BoberFett
Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
At the individual level, I have no doubt that you're correct. At the individual level I have no doubt that most Republicans want to help people as well.
Once you get beyond that, corruption sets in. Democrats and Republicans in Washington have no interest in helping anybody but themselves. That's why federal programs to "help people" will fail. They're instituted to put people in power. If the poor are actually helped, that's just dumb luck.
I now know why I never venture into this subforum to post. At any rate I did, so I'll explain my views on both topics.
First weed. I have no use for weed. While the majority of weed users just sit around baked in their house and do stupid shit at home while eating everything (and Darwin claims one every so often), it really has no use being legalized. I will say it is one of the least harmful drugs but that in no way means it should be legalized. With legalizing weed the only positive point out of it, would be it can then be taxed. The negatives of drugs in general far outweigh the possible tax benefit. I really don't care to dig up numbers but (right or wrong) I believe that weed being legal will cause crime rates to increase.
You want me to explain how it's illegality is GOOD, but I don't see any reason why it is BAD (with the exception of tax revenue). If you want it changed then put forward your case as to why it should be changed.
On to the housing market, and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about his stance on it. From what I have seen he is against bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is of the view that they should reap what they sow. While this is great in theory, in practice it's a horrible idea. The housing market is generally what the economy is based off of, meaning if it slows down generally the economy does as well. If we let all the banks fail because of bad lending practices, then this economy is going to go through absolute hell. We might be better off after it, but I have no interest in seeing what The Great Depression v2.0 looks like. Do you? I don't like the bailouts, but I do realize they are needed to keep our economy from a total depression/collapse.
The housing market I don't think has already crumbled and collapsed. Was it falling apart? Sure, but I don't think we have hit the bottom yet. I think at this point whats going to happen is going to happen. I didn't fuck anything up, sorry. I didn't make any bad loans, nor did I take out a loan on a house. Regardless of who I voted for, they weren't at fault for the market being where it is right now. Banks, and the people buying the houses they couldn't afford were. I have no problems giving somebody a shot at it, but Ron Paul (or any other 3rd party candidate for that matter) has a chance at actually being able to win to change that. Yes voting for Ron Paul can help align the D/R to a different viewpoint, but that will be short lived and most likely just half truths to get into office. Do I think there needs to be change? 100% yes, but voting either D/R won't do that and voting 3rd party doesn't help who will be elected next. Yes it will affect the parties views later down the line, but not for the next administration.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,884
- 10,697
- 147
So do I.
Surely you can see that this current iteration of the Republican party, which lies prostrate and pandering before the radical religious right and their various litmus tests, which has developed and promoted the RADICAL idea of the Unitary Presidency (which nearly completely obliterates our nearly 200 year old heritage of checks and balances between the three branches of government), and which has broken down our historic Constitutional divide between church and state, even going so far as to promote faith based "science", and which has enthusiastically overseen the creation and promotion of the largest and most repressive government internal security bureaucracy the free world has ever seen, the Dept. of Homeland Security, is anything but centrist.
In fact, this Republican party is the most RADICALLY right wing and retrograde major political party now extant in ALL of the globe's major Western democracies, BY FAR.
It is radical, authoritarian, religious, and the vigilant nursemaid of the ultra rich.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
So you would choose continuous mediocrity rather than a brief struggle followed by something better than the status quo?
If we would be better off after it (and I firmly believe that we would), then it is worse to avoid it than to simply face it head on. I simply cannot fathom what it is that makes people so happy to accept a permanent dull ache when the alternative is a very brief period of greater pain followed by no pain at all. People are simply not willing to look at the future. Tomorrow is of greater importance to them than next year. This is why we falter.
There was once a time when people sought "the good". Now it seems that most seek nothing more than "the good enough for now".
ZV
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Do you not see how this applies to other items as well? Alcohol, cigarettes...but hey, we like to have a drink every now and then (or all of the time if one is an alcoholic) but those are still legalized. But we all know what happened when alcohol was prohibited....crime went nuts. So pleas explain to me how legalizing/decriminalizing weed would make crime rise in a significant manner when all logic points to it decreasing significantly.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
The problem is the extremist have taken control of each party. The crazy social conservatives have had control of the republican party for a very long time. The crazy moveon.org and tree hugger types have taken control of the democratic party. I don't think the republicans can ever kick the social conservatives to the curb. I do have hope one day the democratic party can kick Pelosi and moveon.org to the curb and move towards the center.
I don't think it would be "brief" in the least. The Great Depression took a WORLD war to get us out of, and while it would have happened on its own I don't think we would be the power we are today without WWII (duh). If we let the housing market fail we would be going through a second Great Depression for years.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter