For crying out loud!
-
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.
-
Ron,
@bellwells said:
...government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation...
...isn't socialism, it's social consciousness. As for "coalition approach": that's what our "founding fathers" invisioned. George Washington, in his farewell address, said: "A two party system will be the death of our Republic."
-
@tomsdesk said:
@bellwells said:
...government provided health care, full retirement and the like all paid for with fairly high taxation...
...isn't socialism, it's social consciousness./quote]
Yeah. You're right about the health care, the high taxes etc, Ron, (we have the same system in Belgium) but you're quite wrong when you call that approach socialist (or communist, cause that's what you mean) - it's just a humane approach.
We may have 'too much government' for your taste, but I can assure you you're a lot better off being out of a job, or ill, over here than in the US. That's something I want to spend more than half of my income on - solidarity doesn't come cheap.
-
-
@mr s said:
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 SIt's more like comparing Coke and milk. (Chocolate milk in this case - please don't imply a racist slur) One rots your teeth and the other re-builds strong bones.
-
Stinkie, I would never confuse communism with socialism. I define communism as the government controlling the means of production (the old USSR) while socialism is the government providing cradle-to-grave care of it's citizens. I don't need or want the government to care for me; I don't want that dependence. I think the essential job of government is to protect I believe excessive government interferes with individual freedom. Some would point our own Patriot Act as proof of this.
I do see the humane-ness of socialism, but I would not be willing to spend 50% of my income on it. Doesn't that high of a tax rate tend to interfere with entrepeneurial efforts? I would think there would be a disincentive to earning. I guess it comes down to the life style we are each used to.
I notice the "I have no job..." at the bottom of your posts. I hope this is a temporary condition.
Tom, Washington was right, wasn't he? He also mentioned the importance of religion in this speech, which is interesting considering how repellent the concept is to some these days.
-
@bellwells said:
Doesn't that high of a tax rate tend to interfere with entrepeneurial efforts? I would think there would be a disincentive to earning.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? In practice, however, this doesn't seem to be the case. At least, everyone I know wants to work (and does so). Possibly this has something to do with the desire to 'make something out of yourself'. You know, status, self esteem. I don't think there are that many people who want to spend their lives sitting on their behinds and vegetate.
@bellwells said:
I notice the "I have no job..." at the bottom of your posts. I hope this is a temporary condition.
Heh ... don't worry about me. It's a conscious choice. I felt it was time to start working on my own stuff, rather than to spend my days at some office. The "yay" in my signature is far from ironic.
As for being too dependant on the government, I've never experienced it that way. In fact, I feel our system gives us a lot of chances, rather than keeping us dependant. An example. A couple of years ago, I got layed off from my McJob (hauling boxes). I'd been working for a few years and thus met the requirements for unemployment. I got about € 1000 a month ($ 1.461,4), which meant I didn't have to worry about paying the rent etc. In effect, getting unemployment gave me the great opportunity to better myself: I had all the time I wanted to study (well, a year, after that, the benefits diminish). So I did: I spent my days studying the ins and outs of Dutch grammar. To cut a long story short: that helped me quite a lot to get a job as an editor/copywriter. Which was a lot better than lifting boxes. The way I see it, if temporary state benefits enable you to get ahead in life, they effectively improve your individual freedom.
I guess it's all a matter of what you're willing to do with the chances and opportunities that are available. And it's a good thing there are indeed chances and opportunities. I am very much willing to pay for that. Perhaps I won't be needing the 'help' of the state anymore, but there's always someone who does.
Errr ... we got a lot less homeless people than you boys do.
That speaks for our approach, I think. -
I watched the debate as well, and I thought both candidates made some strong points. I give an edge to Obama, just because I felt he gave more concise answers and descriptions of what he has planned and what his agenda will consist of, and McCain resorted to mostly referencing his past experience rather than what he intends to do, and blatant flag waving. As I found out this morning when I discussed the debate with a friend who loves McCain and hates Obama, based on your politics really dictates who you thought won the debate. I don't think anyone clearly "won", and most of the experts agreed it was mostly a draw.
-
i have just have watched the match between Obama and McCain.
and i have got the impression that Obama stands strong and correct.
i think will win.
Advertisement