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.

Voting by party in parliament is controlled by the Whips, who come and have words with a member if there seems to be a danger he won't vote with his party.

The only real sanction, though, is to prevent a member from getting cabinet rank if he is on the government benches.

Members are selected to stand by their local party officers, so as long as they stay popular in their constitutency, they can do what they like.

streamdragon wrote:Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.

Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)

Technically he created the Progressive Party.

The Fountain of all Knowledge wrote:The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt

mattyrm wrote:More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!

And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.

I'm stunned at how close it is, only In America! If these guys were running in somewhere civilised like the UK, Obama would be 35% ahead in the polls.

PHILISTINE!

 AustonT wrote:

streamdragon wrote:Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.

Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)

Technically he created the Progressive Party.

The Fountain of all Knowledge wrote:The Progressive Party of 1912 was an American political party. It was formed by former President Theodore Roosevelt

Well yes, the Progressive Party was the Bullmoose Party:

The party also became known as the Bull Moose Party when former President Roosevelt boasted "I'm fit as a bull moose," after being shot in an assassination attempt prior to his 1912 campaign speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

 streamdragon wrote:
Technically, he founded the Bull Moose party, not joined it. Which, let's be honest, has a much cooler mascot than either of our two current parties.

Edit: And he only created it after losing the Republican primary to Taft. (Because what party is going to remove the sitting president?)

True on both counts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chowderhead wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron!

Welcome to America, the only place where saying someone's a socialist is an insult...

As a nearly socialist democrat, it's gak like that that makes me wonder.

Wait wasn't the Nazi Party the Social Democrats...???

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait wasn't the Nazi Party the Social Democrats...???

Close. National Socialist German Workers Party... Which oddly enough denounced socialism. And with a name like 'Wokers' in its name you'd expect maybe a little Communism but they hated that too

 mattyrm wrote:
More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!

I'd take you up on that action if I wasn't convinced a hundred quid is equivalent to around half a million dollars.

No the Progressive party was known as the Bull Moose party, like the Conservative party is known as the Tories.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Wait wasn't the Nazi Party the Social Democrats...???

Close. National Socialist German Workers Party... Which oddly enough denounced socialism. And with a name like 'Wokers' in its name you'd expect maybe a little Communism but they hated that too

Yeah it was pretty perplexing. Like the GOP calling it self the Gay Athiest Pro Life Crusaders.

 Orlanth wrote:
Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.

And this is the slow death of the Republican party.

Exclusion may work for country clubs, but it does not work for political parties which requires votes.
Keep working that exclusion policy guys -- see how far it gets you.

Exclusion doesn't even work for country clubs. At least, not when saying "the other country club had a nice meal plan" becomes a reason to exclude. I mean, you can only throw out so many people before you're out of people to throw out.

 labmouse42 wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Frazzie has it right there. Powell 'crossed the floor' as we say in Blighty. He would have been a Republican changing his vote in 2008, which would be newsworthy, but in 2012 he is just another Democrat.

And this is the slow death of the Republican party.

Exclusion may work for country clubs, but it does not work for political parties which requires votes.
Keep working that exclusion policy guys -- see how far it gets you.

Er, its not exclusion when you have a major figure start rooting for the other side. I have faith he'll support whichever party is in power.

 mattyrm wrote:
More good news for me, i've got a few hundred quid riding on Obama!

And as I keep reminding you lot, we were voting for McCain in 2008 until Palin rocked up with her fairly decent rack offset by meat-pie fething IQ.

I'm stunned at how close it is, only In America! If these guys were running in somewhere civilised like the UK, Obama would be 35% ahead in the polls.

The most ridiculous thing is, they keep saying Obama is a commie and a socialist when he absolutely isn't. Over here he is probably slightly more conservative than Cameron!

He isn't a commie/socialist... relative to American Politics... he's a leftist (as a whole, we're a nation shifting to the right).
I found this interesting:

So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?

Probably a complete failure of diplomacy. After all, I recall romney saying something about dropping bombs.

Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

 whembly wrote:
So... given this chart... what would happen if hypotetically Romney won?

Other nations would be less willing to work with us.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

This.

Remember Bush Jr saying "I don't believe in nation building" during the 2000 election. Bush did not secretly think he was going to be doing nation building the entire time. 9/11 happened. He was fed faulty intelligence and had the US military invade Iraq.

Stuff changes when you take the role of commander in chief.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

Congress.

 Frazzled wrote:

I never scream bipartisanship.

And you never lie either.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I never scream bipartisanship.

And you never lie either.

Plus I am 6 foot tall, my yard is immaculate, my wife is a good cook, and all my kids are above average.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Things change once you have your feet under the desk in the Oval Office.

Yeah this. It helps that, assuming Romney wins, he's head of one of the most economically and militarily powerful countries in the world. Tends to get a man some street cred when walking down the mean streets of international politics.

It's not that, really.

He will be constrained by the realities of the situation.

What realities would that be?

That's just about every President's reality...

News flash... Obama had both chambers in both years...

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I never scream bipartisanship.

And you never lie either.

Plus I am 6 foot tall, my yard is immaculate, my wife is a good cook, and all my kids are above average.

So: American.

Good on Powell for not being a puppet of his party, but showing *gasp* leadership and looking at more than just the letter next to the name.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.

In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.

So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.

You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.

In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.

So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.

You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."

I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.

In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.

So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.

You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."

I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.

Well, that would require looking up facts, we can't have that now.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Um, yeah, he is. Not a Republican politician per se mind you, but he is a registered member of the Republican Party.

In some ancient time he may have been a registered republican, like when he worked for Bush Sr., but when you publicly endorse the opposing party you're no longer a member of the other party.

So Clint Eastwood is also not a Republican either? He has endorsed other people in the past as well. Being a member of a party doesn't mean you check you are brain at the door and vote party ticket only. I love the people complain about how nothing gets done and how partisan politics are but when someone shows individual thought they are attacked for not towing the line.

You just said Clint Eastwood, and checking you're brain at the door. Hold on I need a chair to seat down, oh wait he was standing next to one.
"Is that Clint Eastwood or some raving homeless guy?"
"Is he muttering to a chair?"
"Yep."
"Clint Eastwood."

I notice you didn't address the fact that Eastwood has endorsed candidates for other parties before on occasion when he thought they were better for the job, and is still Republican enough to be a speaker at the Republican National Convention.

As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.

At least I'm not saying drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.

 Frazzled wrote:
As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.

Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than. At least people outside of Dakka OT listen to their opinion.

 Frazzled wrote:
At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.

Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
As a policy I don't recognize actors' right to exist much less their thoughts. But since you asked:
He didn't endorse the opposing candidate TWICE to be the head of the US government and the most powerful politician in the world.
Had he endorsed Obama to be President I'd say he's not a Republican too.

Your opinion is actually worth less than what you think their opinion is worth, it would seem, than.

 Frazzled wrote:
At least I'm not sayign drum him out of the party like the Democrats did Lieberman.

Of course you aren't endorsing kicking them out of the party, you are already saying they aren't members; you can't drum someone out of a party they are not a member of.

Everyone's attacking poor Frazzled today. Thats ok. Like it or not I'm right. You can't be a player in one political party and endorse the other guy for the highest office in the land. That makes you unperson in that party. Everyone's acting like that's new and Frazzled's nuts, but as noted Leiberman was kicked out. Other's have been kicked out. If you root for the other side your reception in the dugout is pretty icy. If you think otherwise wherever you're living, it sure isn't planet Earth.

Please continue to attack me and the worth of my opinions however, at your leisure. Its fun to watch.