For crying out loud!
-
Hi kwist,
Your example of choosing between Pepsi and Coke is spot on.
Like the main political parties, you are being offered something that seems all sweetness and light. You then discover that you are ingesting a sugary chemical drink that will rot your teeth and if enough is consumed will rot your insides!
Most of the world does not want a one-world coca-cola mono culture.
Neither do I.Regards
Mr S -
Hi Mr. S,
I can't speak for the US situation, but yes, in Europe there is a similar tendency.
The philosophy of parties isn't that clear anymore, a lot of political 'wings' have blurry boundaries, even have overlapping opinions on essential topics with the opposite side.
More and more, the people don't vote for a political program but for a person.
This changes the way parties do their election campaigns: much more playing on emotion, image building, reducing complex material to slogans etc...No wonder that people loose interest in politics. We are being trained to choose a person, just like we would choose a 'product' ,overly marketeerd.
Politics has become consumption.The US situation is a ridiculous example of this. It's like having to choose between Pepsi and Coke or Madonna and Britney Spears.
No wonder that the cure to a disfunctional regime might be as bad as the disease. -
Mr. S,
I hear you regarding the choices being pretty much the same in a different wrapper, and the point about many folk voting against one candidate instead of for the other.
I also saw your point about ones guilt being a factor for voting for Obama based on ones guilt rather against him based on ones prejudices.Do I agree? nope.
George Walker Bush is a classic example of the extreme differences between the two parties, and had he had the house and the senate behind him on every decision our situation and future would be a lot more dire. What about the social issues? you cannot say that pro life versus pro choice is the same thing, or creationism versus evolutionism the same. Heck there are many very serious and some very personal differences between the two entities that make them very different choices.
But all of these differences are lost to a voting culture based on partizan labeling and not issues. I live in the most conservative city in the United states (Google Plano, Texas) and without saying the choice here is clear ... McCain. But when you meet these folks one on one and ask them why they are voting that way you get the idea of why this is a polarizing culture. The truth is they just do not know, they are Republicans by birth, location or just social conformity. Most of these really decent folk are very socially liberal and some have more closer view towards the left than the right, but that does not mean they would even consider changing their vote.
2004 was a classical example of an election that was based on voting against rather than for a candidate, John Kerry was a terrible choice and the Democrats knew it, unfortunately the barrel was empty as far as exciting and legitimate choices go, after Howard Dean's "Yee-haw" he was dead politically (what a shame we are so superficial)
And that approach failed, as GWB got re-elected. This election is not like that, McCain is running as a 'Maverick' a non Conformist, a candidate that can reach over the partisan restrictions and work with the Democrats, yet he chooses a very polarizing VP that would rather eliminate dissent than negotiate.
Obama is running as an agent of change, just words they say ... but is it? Can a candidate make a real difference? hell yeah, again look at the difference GWB was able to orchestrate. Obama will have an advantage if indeed elected, the Dems have the house and the senate and promises made during the campaign can indeed be implemented as he will have the support of the house and senate in making them happen, can McCain say the same?Regarding Obama's hardline at AIPAC, how different is it from McCains aggressive stance on Russia?
The way I see it is that 80% of the US voting block has decided their vote before a candidate was even elected, The republicans could have nominated Mickey Mouse and he would get 40% of the vote without thought and the same goes for the other side too. It's the undecided and independents that IMO are the intelligent voters the ones that are making their choice based on the candidate and the issues. I would like to say I am one of them but truth be told I would lean more left of any choice, however when Hilary was an option I was torn between her and Mccain on a few issues, until McCain changed his views on many issues to align with his base and I was able to make a clear decision, thankfully Obama got the nod and now my choice is solid.
Finally on your point that most folk will vote for Obama based on guilt rather than against him based on prejudices just does not even seem a reality, but then again I live in Texas, say no more.
-
Kwist, that is not entirely true here in the U.S. There are fundamental differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans tend to favor less government, less spending (although under Bush both of these have grown), fewer regulations, and more conservative approaches to societal issues (no gay rights, less fewer social grants, etc.). Democrats are generally considered more liberal, especially towards societal issues such as gay rights, affirmative action, and the like, as well as favoring stricter regulations on industry. In a nutshell, Republicans have the attitude that less government in peoples' lives and in business is best - they can take care of themselves; the Democrats feel the government is there to assist the people directly, and to regulate business (from harmful practices).
As to race in the election: I too feel there are many people who will not vote for Obama simply because he is not white. For some, it's an outright racist choice, for some I think it will be a subconcious decision. However, I thought that from the beginning, and never expect him to get this far. Obviously, quite a few people did not vote by race or he wouldn't be the Democratic contender. So, I am pessimistically optimistic.
At this moment, the one plus Obama has going for him - and it's awful but true - is the fact that our economy is crashing down around us. Regardless of who or what is at fault - and it's such a complicated mess that one can't point to one person for blame - the Republicans have been in charge of the White House for eight years, and in the public's eye, they are to blame. I think that is the real reason McCain wanted to delay the debate until after he had rushed to Washington and "fixed" the situation.
-
Tom, I did skip over a lot of history, but I think the basics are accurate. I shudder at all the
"we need more regulation" chatter coming from Capitol Hill these days. I'm a laisez faire kinda guy and do not want more government oversight or regulation. Unfortunately, this is precisely what will happen. This is yet another step toward socialism. It is a fine line. Greedy mortgage brokers and lenders rushed to sign up anyone with a pulse because they could pass the risk onto Wall Street in the form of mortgage backed securities. The risk was not assigned to the risk taker. There was no regulation controlling this business model. Had there been such regulation would we be in this current mess? I don't know. I do know if we put this pricks in prison for a spell, this behavior will cease. Of course this means there has to be a law that was broken; thus here we are back to regulation...I also think the current bailout solution is not the answer. It rewards bad behavior. The House Republicans, the true conservatives Daniel referred to, prefer an federal insurance plan to backstop the crapping mortgages rather than the fed buying these mortgages and them trying to either collect or re-sell them.
We live in interesting times.
Edit: Stinkie, the amount of debt the average American has is disproportionate to their income/assets. We have been living beyond our means for probably 30 years now. We have come to expect the largesse offered by government and we keep voting for the candidate who promises us the most.
-
@bellwells said:
fella77, it's impossible to discuss these deep issues with someone like you. I suggest you do a little reading. You'll be a better person for it.
Someone like me? What exactly do you mean by that, sir? Are you somehow suggesting that I am intellectually inferior to you, because I disagree with your opinions. I do allot of reading for your information, and like a typical right wing snob you feel your information is somehow more accurate than others, and your opinion more important than others who might disagree with you. How dare you question what kind of person I am. Obviously, I hit a nerve with you with my criticism of the current administration so you feel it's necessary to attack my intelligence and character...I guess my observations aren't "deep" enough to be valid. Maybe you should do some reading, other than the drudge report and listening to Rush Limbaugh spew his poison. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and though I didn't agree with you sir, I didn't attack your intelligence or character.
-
@bellwells said:
This is yet another step toward socialism.
This made me laugh really loudly. Run for the hills! The Reds are coming! But seriously - by socialism you mean communism, right? I'm asking 'cause over here the two are not quite the same. I mean, I'm a socialist, but I'm not exactly a devout fan of totalitarianism (I spelled this wrong, didn't I?).
David, you been snorting coffee again?
-
@unknownuser said:
I also think the current bailout solution is not the answer. It rewards bad behavior.
Yes but getting on a moralistic high horse is not going to keep our heads above the rising waters. "laisez faire" usually means, "leave us alone while we subsidize the rich with your taxes". That's how we got here. I would remain distrustful of these devils, but letting the whole system fail, materialistic and exploitive as it is, is not going to help the rest of us. As for the risk-taking homeowner down the street, I would rather bail him out than have a gang start selling drugs from the burnt out shell of his former home.
Of course, riots and revolution may come of it. Yay! Let's forgo our condos and man the barricades. Too late. The class war was lost, in part because the rich on the right figured out a way to fool almost half the population (out there in the fly over lands) into thinking they could benefit from being openly screwed.
Some good music could come of this also, as we ride the rails looking for handouts. "Will model for food."
-
Well put, Solo, and in many ways I agree with you. I would point out that as far as the media is concerned there is no difference between the parties. The media spends basically zero attention to 3rd party candidates because they're just that (not one of THE 2 parties). Take a guy like Ralph Nader who is on 45 of the 50 state ballots and in many ways wants what the people want(http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=2836). He has NO ACCESS to big media to tell them this. It would be an entirely different story if he were allowed into ONE debate. The debates are run by a bipartisan 'commission' that knows that there's not much difference between the 2 big parties.
By the way, just to stay on topic, Ralph is against the bailout too.
-
Stinkie, I guess either definition could apply to our current situation. Whatever the proper definition is, it's a move away from what our founding fathers envisioned as a democratic republic. A collection of states with the federal government having a few but distinct rights and what rights are not enumerated go to the States.
We are rapidly departing from this tenant and I don't like it. I'd have to say that President Bush, for whom I voted twice, has NOT been an adherent to our founding form of government. This is why I will likely vote Libertarian.
PS: You spelled totalitarianism correctly.
-
Eric, you make a good point regarding third party access to the media. The last third party candidate who had access and was a part of the debates was Ross Perot (in 1992) and he got 19% of the vote! We need third parties now more than ever. Actually, a more accurate statement might be that we need a second party now more than ever.
-
Imagine if Ross Perot was 6 feet tall and not quite as quirky! Matt Gonzalez and Jesse Venture are also good examples of independents that forced a 3 way race basically from out of nowhere, Jesse actuall won his. These were local races so the media didn't play quite the same role, that national media is a tough nut to crack.
Ron, I guess that makes us the 'the undecided and independent' voters that Solo mentioned. I'm glad to see that neither of us is voting for a dem or rep. The lesser of 2 evils is still evil, right?
Sorry to stray so far from the topic.
-
The original thread started by Solo was really far reaching, I guess. The mainstream media is left leaning so it's hard to introduce a third party. The right does want a third party because they will siphon off votes. I find it interesting that most viable third parties are basically conservative in their beliefs.
Who is Matt Gonzales?
Edit: the lesser of two evils is still evil....priceless!!
Edit: In the interest of accuracy and honesty, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act was introduced by Republicans in 1999 and it passed both Houses with a veto-proof majority. The bill enjoyed wide bi-partisan support.
-
The idea of a third party would be great if indeed it's possible.
I am unfortunately a little wired to the left and I will always give a liberal candidate the benefit of the doubt which makes me biased.
I must say if ever I was to look seriously at the right and possibly align to cast a vote their way would have been if Ron Paul was able to secure the nomination, he had so many progressive views that I totally agreed with, I would have had to forego a few social concerns for the greater good however, but unfortunately his views were just too large a pill for the fundamentals to swallow.
I suppose what I would need is a candidate that is fiscally conservative (unlike recent conservative fiscal behavior) with a few social concessions like healthcare, he or she would need to be somewhat socially liberal as to a few key issues like upholding Roe. V. Wade, separation of church and state including funding to such institutions, etc.
A candidate that does not feel the need to pander to the religious right in order to seek office, a person who is not tarnished by Washington and liked by lobbyists.That ain't gonna happen.
-
Matt Gonzalez is Ralph Nader's running mate in the upcoming election. He ran for mayor of San Francisco a while back and was polling around 5 or 6% until he was allowed in a locally televised debate which caused a spike in his popularity, he lost the race by a very small margin. He's worth a look, I'd love to see him debate the other VP candidates!
And thanks for the clarity on the Glass-Steagall Act too, I'm boning up for tonight's big variety show (debate).
And SOLO, you're talking about Ralph Nader.
-
@unknownuser said:
All the better. Still, Palin tried to get books removed. Bad thing. B-A-D.
I'm a bloody foreigner but according to snopes.com the claim is false.
As a foreigner, what worries me is the US foreign policy after the election. Will the US isolate itself again, or keep an active role, perhaps with more negotiations than before?
Will Iraq and Afghanistan be left to their fates to satisfy the American voters?I am quite unable to say which of the candidates is better for the world at large, and in the debates these seem to be some kinds of non-issues. Kennedy may otherwise have been a totally corrupt person but he succeeded at avoiding an all-out nuclear war.
I seem to like more and more our local political system where the power is divided between the larger three or four political parties that are forced to compromise to form a government. The result is a bit dull, but it lacks the bipolar fluctuations, and everyone, except perhaps the poorest, are treated more or less fairly
Anssi
-
Anssi, did I read somewhere that Finland is trying to de-socialize itself?
-
@bellwells said:
Anssi, did I read somewhere that Finland is trying to de-socialize itself?
Maybe you did read, but Finland has been ruled by coalition governments (with 'bourgeois' majority except in 1906-8 and 1966-70). So it has never been socialist. So maybe you are mixing us up with the small Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) that were occupied by the Soviet Union in WWII. Even they have already had since 1991 to de-socialize themselves.
Anssi
-
I thought the Scandinavian countries were under some form of socialism in which the government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation.
I have to say I like the coalition approach. I prefer it when Congress is gridlocked or on recess. The less the "govern", the better we are.
-
@anssi said:
@unknownuser said:
All the better. Still, Palin tried to get books removed. Bad thing. B-A-D.
I'm a bloody foreigner but according to snopes.com the claim is false.
Anssi
What snopes is saying is false is that there is/was a list of books that she tried to or did have banned. That is false. What isn't false is that she approached the librarian and asked her if she would be opposed to banning certain titles and she said she was. I also understand that the librarian was fired,, although that claim has been disputed. As Stinkie said just the fact that she wanted books to be banned is bad enough.
Advertisement