Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem with Libertarians is the Ayn Radian worshipers though, so either way you are going to have to face religious people.

Yeah i have to say i wouldnt have been happy voting for either party in the last election in the US. I like the conservatives in the UK, as they seem to be more sensible, ie very centrist. Not ridiculously left wing where i feel like they only care for the sick lame and lazy and they want to work me to death to look after them. And not ridiculously right wing and actually have some form of wellfare system and allows immigration and suchlike.

It seems to me it is unusual that it is basically a two horse race in the US. With the blanket attitudes that the Republicans and the Dems have, i would have thought that some of the other parties would make an impact, but i hear very very little of them. Ron Paul struck me as a non entity for example.

It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.

I know for a fact that a good 1/2 of my American friends agree with me on most of my views, why is it that you seem to be casting your vote into the wilderness in the US if you dont vote for either of the big parties? Have the independants had real issues getting their voices heard?

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.

But honestly, of those who are saying it's not true, what percentage would also say that any claim he made wasn't true. Let's face it most of the commentators (even here) who have criticized him would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.

efarrer wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:Which is why I like Reid actually made a smart play. He got some press, threw a shot, and made people start thinking about how this will play in history.

note the response to his comments: everybody is saying that it was offensive and beneath the majority leader, but nobody is saying it's not true.

Er lots are saying its not true. You're just not listening.

But honestly, of those who are saying it's not true, what percentage would also say that any claim he made wasn't true. Let's face it most of the commentators (even here) who have criticized him would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.

That is some sweet polarizing rhetoric ya have their friend-o.

dogma wrote:You sound more like a Libertarian. They don't get a cute(?) animal mascot.

I nominate the Owl as the Libertarian mascot!

The two "mascots" for the Libertarians, IIRC, are the Statue of Liberty and the rattlesnake, from Ben Franklin's article in the Pennsylvania Journal, then made into a flag by Gadsden.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag

So be it.

As It Was Written So It Shall Be Done

I remember Ramses II, and son, you're no Ramses....

mattyrm wrote:Now, this prompted another debate between me and the missus when i said "oh ok he was a republican eh?" She said that he "technically" was, but he was a "democratic republican" and the party doesnt exist anymore, and that Lincoln would "most certainly" be a Democrat now.

Is she arguing with me safe in the knowledge i dont know any better?

Lincoln, as a Republican, fought the South, who had rebelled in large part to keep their slaves. From then until the 1960s the South was a Democratic stronghold, the Southern Democrats were full of a lot of good old boy racists. But when Lyndon Johnson introduced civil rights legislation the southern Democrats were pissed, causing Nixon to formulate the Southern strategy, which attracted racist Democrat voters to the Republicans. This worked very well for a long time, with the South voting solidly Republican.

But if the civil is too long ago for the Republicans to honestly claim credit for Lincoln, it could also be argued that the civil rights movement was too long ago for the GOP to carry any shame for the Southern strategy. While these things don't simply go away and were certainly a factor into the 80s and arguably into the 90s, Obama won Virginia, Florida and North Carolina... so I think if a black guy can carry southern states, then it's fair to say anger over the civil rights movement ain't what it used to be.

Settle the score.

Nurglitch goes cryptic...

Is the reply "the moon is blue over Parador?"

mattyrm wrote:It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.

Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.

But, starting with starting with Gingrich in the mid-90s the Republicans a move towards the nutbar end of the rightwing, with this process increasing in speed considerably in the wake of 9/11. By the standards of the modern Republicans Nixon would be too far to the left, given he supported healthcare reform with a public option.

The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.

To secure peace, you must prepare for war.

The sad thing about Sebster is that if you asked him who the mayor of his city is he'd have no idea but if you asked him what was going on in American politics in 1984 he'd write three paragraphs.


You know I'm just jokin' with ya Sebster.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.

Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.

But, starting with starting with Gingrich in the mid-90s the Republicans a move towards the nutbar end of the rightwing, with this process increasing in speed considerably in the wake of 9/11. By the standards of the modern Republicans Nixon would be too far to the left, given he supported healthcare reform with a public option.

The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.

Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.

mattyrm wrote:
It just seems to me that in the US your vote either has to be either a very left wing, self loathing hand wringing liberal apologist, or a flag waving right wing god pest.

That's largely by design. Karl Rove effectively proved that any given party can get elected, in consecutive Presidential elections, on the strength of rhetoric alone. So long as the party tows the line for the mob, anything that is actually done (or not done) will be swept aside by the weight of information. So you get wild, sensationalist rhetoric flowing freely from the partisan morass (most evident with the Republicans under Bush, but the Democrats seem to heading in that direction now) while legislation is formulated in the background.

It does seem that people are starting to see through the nonsense (Tea Party movement). Unfortunately, they've decided that the best way to fight it is with even more nonsense (Tea Party Movement). Now, there certainly is the point that cutting through the aggregated BS thrown around by both sides is likely to require a certain degree of sensationalism, but it remains to be seen if that's a point the movement can reasonably be expected to internalize.

mattyrm wrote:
Have the independants had real issues getting their voices heard?

Independents don't vote. That's problem one. Problem two arises from their distribution across the electorate (not usually enough to affect a Congressional race), and the way electoral districts work in the context of the Presidential race (have to win a whole district).

I vote. But I almost always vote Dem, as on most issues they're closer to me. Both parties are really pretty centrist.

What's that quote? Is it British, or Canadian in origin?

"The Americans have two parties, the Republicans, who are like our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are like our Conservative party."

sebster wrote:Not really. US politics for a long time wasn't all that factional. The whips had none of the influence of the Westminster system, and for the longest time there was considerable levels of bi-partisanship between two parties who were fairly similar for the most part, pro-business centrists parties.

Sebster is right on all accounts here. The whip element of our political system has never, ever been as strong as it is in the Westminster system. Bi-partisanship used to be much more widespread. Here is a favorite story of mine that sums up the way politics used to be run: A young Democratic representative from Georgia enters the halls of Congress for the first time. He spots an older member of his caucus sitting in his chair and reading the paper. He approaches him and in a childlike sense of enthusiasm he asks, "Where are the Republicans? I want to know who the enemy is." The older gentlemen looks up and smiles. He pulls his glasses off and sets down his paper and calmly replies, "Son, the Republicans ain't the enemy. That honor is reserved for the Senate."

Ah, the better times of yesteryear......

sebster wrote:The move of the GOP to the far right has created this idea that the Democrats must be just as doggedly left wing, when all they've done is sort of muddled about in the centre like they've been doing for decades. If they were as left wing as you claim, they wouldn't have half their party freaking out over the apparently left wing idea of a public healthcare option.

Agreed with reservation. I agree with this in the idea of the growing importance of such things as the Blue Dogs and Dems from more conservative areas, but the party leadership and historical elements of the party, such as the Black Congressional Caucus, are growing more and more left wing.

Frazzled wrote:Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.

Ah yes, the Brooks-Sumner Affair. It is never wise for an unpopular member of Congress to insult a rather well-liked Senator. Especially when people took such affronts to their personal honor seriously...

Indies vote. They just don't vote in the same numbers as the major parties.

I've put up a *lot* of 3rd party protest votes, just so they're counted.

Same.
-Lets get on the Perot Boat!
-A vote for Nader is a vote for what were we talking about?
-Kinky Friedman for governor, why the hell not? (actual campaign slogan)

JohnHwangDD wrote:Indies vote. They just don't vote in the same numbers as the major parties.

I've put up a *lot* of 3rd party protest votes, just so they're counted.

I mean, obviously some independents vote. My point was exactly the one you just made.

efarrer wrote:SUPER SNIP POWERS ACTIVATE: ... would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.

1) The sky is not always blue, ESPECIALLY at night.
2) The sun does not "rise", much less in the east.









Dems and Reps are like "Spy vs. Spy" or Red vs. Blue.

Ahtman wrote:The sad thing about Sebster is that if you asked him who the mayor of his city is he'd have no idea but if you asked him what was going on in American politics in 1984 he'd write three paragraphs.


You know I'm just jokin' with ya Sebster.

The Mayor is Troy Pickard, I voted for him because he supports new clubrooms for my cricket club. We haven't got them yet, so I guess politics is the same everywhere.

But is that anywhere near as much fun as a Democrat comparing healthcare opponents to the defenders of slavery?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Wait are you serious? US politics has always been a battle. Historically Congressmen have had occasion to challenge each other to duels and there was at least one heavily reported caning of one Congressman by another. We're just returning to how it historically was.

US politics has frequently been vicious, and just as dirty as anywhere else. It is politics afterall.

But there's a difference between vicious politics and factional politics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Sebster is right on all accounts here. The whip element of our political system has never, ever been as strong as it is in the Westminster system. Bi-partisanship used to be much more widespread. Here is a favorite story of mine that sums up the way politics used to be run: A young Democratic representative from Georgia enters the halls of Congress for the first time. He spots an older member of his caucus sitting in his chair and reading the paper. He approaches him and in a childlike sense of enthusiasm he asks, "Where are the Republicans? I want to know who the enemy is." The older gentlemen looks up and smiles. He pulls his glasses off and sets down his paper and calmly replies, "Son, the Republicans ain't the enemy. That honor is reserved for the Senate."

Ah, the better times of yesteryear......

I like that story. I'll try to remember it.

Agreed with reservation. I agree with this in the idea of the growing importance of such things as the Blue Dogs and Dems from more conservative areas, but the party leadership and historical elements of the party, such as the Black Congressional Caucus, are growing more and more left wing.

Yeah, it's at least somewhat likely the Democrats will drift further to the left and set about building as tightly disciplined a party as the GOP. I don't think this is a good thing - the US system just isn't build for factional politics, and the likely result is logjam.

Ahtman wrote:

That is some sweet polarizing rhetoric ya have their friend-o.

But do you seriously disagree? I can see it happening in my country as well. I don't like the death of discourse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

temprus wrote:

efarrer wrote:SUPER SNIP POWERS ACTIVATE: ... would disagree with him if he said the sky was blue or that the sun rises in the east.

1) The sky is not always blue, ESPECIALLY at night.
2) The sun does not "rise", much less in the east.









Dems and Reps are like "Spy vs. Spy" or Red vs. Blue.

That's what I get for using old expressions.

efarrer wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

That is some sweet polarizing rhetoric ya have their friend-o.

But do you seriously disagree? I can see it happening in my country as well. I don't like the death of discourse.

Then stop using stereotypes and broad generalizations in your rhetoric. Hard to change others when you are doing what you yourself are against.

While Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, she said, 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP supported it. Civil rights passed with 82% of Republicans in the Senate and 80% in the House, while 41% and 51%, respectively, voted for Medicare. Mrs. Snowe could have added the 1996 welfare reform that President Clinton signed with the support of nearly all Republicans in Congress, 98 Democratic Representatives and 25 Democratic Senators.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion