The all-inclusive "Republicans hate everything America stands for" thread

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

EDIT: Because Democrats are like, totally all tryin' to pass state sanctioned rape against women these days

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...s-in-u-s-.html

Democrats sure didn't protest much on this bill...

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/...heir-tax-cuts/

Caved on tax cuts...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ain-On-Budget-

Caved on the budget...

Then the end all be all of sell out maneuvers...

The Grand compromise to sell out the middle class in the US

Still think the Democrats are so grand?

Do you want charts to show how hyperpartisan the Republicans have become? How much the Democrats have met them to get anything passed? How much the Democrats don't represent the middle class when the majority of Americans? And when the going gets tough, they cave to special interests.

You really want that in Congress? One party to rule them all?

----------------------------

Edit: And here's the problem with our system.





Until we fix the electoral system, there will never be a good person to nominate for president. The rules really have to change to allow third parties, destroy gerrymandering, and create a system that can't be easily manipulated by shady counting in Florida.

[Loyal]

Until we fix the electoral system, there will never be a good person to nominate for president. The rules really have to change to allow third parties, destroy gerrymandering, and create a system that can't be easily manipulated by shady counting in Florida.

So, how do you suggest we do this? Sit around and do nothing till the system collapses under its own weight?

Like I would like to know this magical solution whereby people can fix the voting system while entirely bypassing it.

[Osterbaum]

So, how do you suggest we do this? Sit around and do nothing till the system collapses under its own weight?

Voting certainly isn't the solution, at least not the only one. The system needs a fundamental change, and that isn't going to happen by voting Democrat over Republican. Krylo's suggestion of voting a third party has more merrit, but that's only because you live in a two party system. Also something that needs to change and also something that isn't likely to change by voting. I'm not saying voting is bad, I'm just saying it's not enough and might even be useless with the current state of affairs.

[Jagos]

Originally Posted by Loyal

So, how do you suggest we do this? Sit around and do nothing till the system collapses under its own weight?

Like I would like to know this magical solution whereby people can fix the voting system while entirely bypassing it.

Well look around for a second. There's at least three ways to make a better electoral system.

1) Find a way to punish political parties that don't represent the majority. IE vote out the parties that don't hold your view.

2) Create a system that eliminates gerrymandering through proportional voting or other options of governance.

3) Find ways to eliminate rules such as Citizens United that have destroyed representative democracy in America.

You fix those problems, and most other problems (minority rule, gerrymandering, horrid spy plans of the government) fall by the wayside since they won't pass Congressional muster.

[Loyal]

I ask what one might suggest to solve the problem that is our broken party system and all you have to offer is "but I don't think voting will work." That is to say, exactly what you have been saying the entire time. That is to say, nothing at all where a response to my question is concerned.

You also say that voting isn't the only solution, and then don't follow up with anything in particular. The closest thing you mention is Krylo's voting-for-the-third party suggestion, which is voting and what we are in favor of.

By following up your statement with nothing in particular, you also imply that there is another solution, that you know of, and you are choosing not to say it out of what I can only imagine is spite. Or more likely, you don't actually have anything to say.

With all this in mind, I'm not entirely convinced that continuing this discussion is anything but a waste of time.

[Osterbaum]

All I'm saying is that at this point voting is extremely unlikely to solve any of the underlying problems with the system. The thought that voting is useless is not all that uncommon, and it isn't surprising that people would lose interest in voting when they feel their vote doesn't matter. If someone doesn't vote, the fault often lies with the system not the voter. The common line of thought that not voting is just apathy fails to take into consideration why people aren't voting. Why is someone choosing not to vote? The answer is because they don't feel it matters, that things will not change regardless of who they vote for and/or that whoever they vote will not get elected anyway.

I don't have any specific solutions. But change needs to start somewhere, and right now that somewhere seems unlikely to be the voting booth.

e:

I ask what one might suggest to solve the problem that is our broken party system and all you have to offer is "but I don't think voting will work." That is to say, exactly what you have been saying the entire time. That is to say, nothing at all where a response to my question is concerned.

Yes, because that's pretty much the only thing I'm trying to argue here.

You also say that voting isn't the only solution, and then don't follow up with anything in particular. The closest thing you mention is Krylo's voting-for-the-third party suggestion, which is voting and what we are in favor of.

I mention Krylo's suggestion, because in a two-party system it carries some weight as a form of protest. But it still fails to solve all of the problems with the current form of democracy.

By following up your statement with nothing in particular, you also imply that there is another solution, that you know of, and you are choosing not to say it out of what I can only imagine is spite. Or more likely, you don't actually have anything to say.

But I don't have a specific plan, a specific solution. Protest through other means, don't support the system, start a revolution etc. Nothing more specific.

I'm really not getting why you seem so frustrated. I'm just trying to argue a point, one point, without getting too deep into it because I don't know all the specific details.

[CABAL49]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Still think the Democrats are so grand?

Neither Liz nor Snake nor anyone else here have claimed that Democrats are the best thing ever. In fact I am pretty sure both of them defining the Democrats as terrible is proof of them not putting the Democrats on a pedestal. The Democrats are terrible. But they are better than the Republicans, tea party or these self proclaimed libertarians.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Steel Shadow

I wouldn't mind seeing examples of when this has actually worked. Like, anything recent? It's American politics, I'm struggling to stay informed about my own over here.

It's pretty rare, but Perot can be blamed for a lot of the more centrist views of the current democratic party. He's a weird case, though, because he stole 38% of the vote from both republicans and democrats. Clinton ended up winning, but he ended up winning by being democrat-lite, a very moderate and conservative version of the democrat party. He can also be blamed for the McCain/Palin ticket, as McCain was a very centrist republican. G.W. was also billed as being relatively moderate and centrist before being put into office the first time. He ran as a 'compassionate conservative' implying a centrist view.

I mean, Perot has generally had negative effects because of where exactly he stood on the issues and how the votes were split, but the effects are still there.

It's hard to suss out EXACTLY what he did however, because you had the first centrist democrat running against a republican party leader who, at the time, was also being more centrist (he had been forgoing reaganomics near the end of his tenure), and he ripped votes from both parties as a pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-war on drugs, pro-trade protectionism, against outsourcing of jobs, and basically just a seemingly random mish mash of traditionally left and right wing policies.

There's also the fact that all his social policies were second to his economic promises of balancing the federal budget, though he gave little actual substance in the way of his plan to do so (other than trade protectionism and ceasing the out sourcing of jobs).

But we did see a much more centrist leaning from both parties after Perot, until G.W. and Palin got together and polarized the fuck outta things again by being insane. Unfortunately no one has done the same since Perot for the democratic party which is probably why the democratic party is pretty toothless.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Well look around for a second. There's at least three ways to make a better electoral system.

1) Find a way to punish political parties that don't represent the majority. IE vote out the parties that don't hold your view.

2) Create a system that eliminates gerrymandering through proportional voting or other options of governance.

3) Find ways to eliminate rules such as Citizens United that have destroyed representative democracy in America.

You fix those problems, and most other problems (minority rule, gerrymandering, horrid spy plans of the government) fall by the wayside since they won't pass Congressional muster.

Jagos, I am going to introduce you to a fav theory of mine. It is about Sheep, Sheepdogs, Wolves, and Wogs.

90-95% of the population of our nation is made up of Sheep. As long as all their needs are met and most of their wants are met, they will not give a crap about anything beyond their own little world. Keeping on the blinders to what is fucked up in our world while staring down at their latest gadget or talking about <Insert Reality Fuck here>.

5% are Sheepdogs, gathering the sheep into their flocks and keeping them happy and sedated with the Weapons of Mass Distraction that keep the blinders on. They protect their own little flock with their own brand of WMDs and will fight other Sheepdogs and set their flocks at the opposing flock too...sounding familiar?

4% are Wolves who prey on the Sheep, sometimes even wearing the Sheepdog costume to do so. They and the Sheepdogs actually got a lot in common once they get a flock of Sheep except the Wolves care about themselves, the Sheepdogs about the flock...normally.

1% are Wogs. These outcasts pretty much think the Sheep, Sheepdogs, and Wolves can all go take a long walk off a short cliff and leave them to their things but because none of them will shut up; the Wog tries to at least point out the Wolves to the Sheepdogs and guard their own Sheep (if they got any) while at the sametime somewhat preying on the stupidity of the Sheep.

Now, why do I think this theory applies here?

Politiclians are basically a mix of Sheepdogs and Wolves. I tend to think more wolves end up Republicans (Santorum and Gingrich anyone?) than Dems but that is just my opinion.

Sheep make up most of the Voting Public.

And Wogs are people like me who really rather be left alone by all this but at least try to make their opinions heard and get laughed at for them.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Jagos

Still think the Democrats are so grand?

Are they the best party? No!
Are they a great party? No!
Are they the moral, ethical, economical, or any equivalent of the radical pandering GOP of today? No!

This false dichotomy, the idea that both parties are as bad as each other and thus voting is irrelevant is beneficial only for the GOP. Voter apathy is their fucking bread and butter at this point because they know their ridiculously loyal base won't ever stop turning up to vote.

The fastest, simplest way to turn this country toward liberalism is appealing to the moderate portion of our population while trying to maintain a liberal leaning. Obama was never a liberal, he's a moderate and I think if he dropped the attempts to pander to the GOP every now and then he'd be a damn good president because of that.

Fuck, in England every single party is a liberal leaning one even though they're all identified with other things. Their parties go Liberal conservative, liberal socialist, and liberal, not because everybody is just that liberal but because the liberals of the past appealed to the moderate majority, and proved that their ideals worked better than the opposition. A conservative ideal can be put into the public mindset for a time, but humanity is always moving forward. We've almost never gone back just for the fuck of it. Imagining going back to segregation, slavery or other things is unthinkable for the majority of the public. But this polarizing, turning everything into far flung ideals for our side versus theirs won't freaking work because most people in the middle don't want that anymore than they want to go backward. It doesn't make them want to vote for either side, it makes them not vote, and when less people vote we get the radical portion of our populace running the show, which, guess what? IS ALL THE GOP RIGHT NOW.

A little while ago the crazy was far more divided, and thus manageable. But a few decades ago after the Democrats became the party of progress, equality and relatively liberal ideas they all went to the GOP, who they saw as the defenders of their right to be nuts.