Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:13:06
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Peregrine wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now.
Then you are honestly wrong. Read what I said there, the problem is not a willingness to vote third party, it's that the US voting system makes it virtually impossible for a successful third party to exist.
But even so, it comes back to if your vote doesn't matter then the only thing that does is if you voted for who you liked or not which is plenty of reason to vote third party if you feel they better represent your ideals.
IOW, having the moral purity of "I voted my conscience" is more important than the practical effect of electing a candidate as close as possible to your beliefs. Do you honestly think that, if you're a left-wing person, it is better to have Trump as president and a clean conscience because you made a protest vote than to have Clinton?
Its a theoretical opinion based on 'what if?' rather than what actually happened, so I don't see how it could be right or wrong. Your second point basically operates on the assumption that one person's individual vote decided the election; it wont. And honestly if any candidate, Trump included, gets 51% of the vote to win then I will be OK with that even if I completely loathe the candidate in question because while I may disagree I can still recognize the need to go with what the majority rules since that's how democracy works.
But really, I know I'm arguing to a brick wall here; its not like you are any better than Whembly in regards to discussion. You have your opinion and its not going to change regardless of the amount of reasoning or evidence brought up so I'll just leave you to it.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:14:07
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Lynchmob at the top of the page;
well it does go to the point that america is not a democracy
Beyond that though, people make the claim fairly regularly on the OT and it gets frustrating.
I don't enjoy getting lost in the weeds of a tangential argument over semantics either but if we're going to discuss our political system it's important to do so with a useful degree specificity.
You know I just had that experience yesterday in another thread XD
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 01:16:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:22:17
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
LordofHats wrote:You'll have a pretty much impossible time produce your ideal candidate in a country with hundreds of millions of people who need to be satisfied. Never is this more evident than in a Presidential race, when we are trying to get everyone to pick 1 person to satisfy them.
Compromise is a requirement of our political system, because unless you perfectly fit the median metrics of US politics you will probably never be completely satisfied with your choices.
Principals are nice and all, but you hit crunch time and you can either stick to your principals and give up a say in practical politics, or you can compromise and actually get counted.
Compromise is a matter of degrees. I'm not trying to say that people should only support a candidate that is a 100% perfect match to your political ideals I am trying to advocate that people take a stand on issues that are important to them. If there are issues that are important to you then you need to support them to be true to yourself. If you give up on issues that are important to you just to vote for a candidate that is likely to win what is the point? You voted for a winner but if that winner doesn't support a political agenda that agrees with positions you value what's the point of putting that person in a position of authority? That level of compromise doesn't help anyone except for the two political parties that get to maintain their control over the system by being the only ones with a chance of winning. Automatically Appended Next Post: LordofHats wrote:
Lynchmob at the top of the page;
well it does go to the point that america is not a democracy
Beyond that though, people make the claim fairly regularly on the OT and it gets frustrating.
I don't enjoy getting lost in the weeds of a tangential argument over semantics either but if we're going to discuss our political system it's important to do so with a useful degree specificity.
You know I just had that experience yesterday in another thread XD
So he did and I totally missed it.  My bad. Oh well, them's the perils of message board posting on my phone.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 01:28:36
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:33:48
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: NinthMusketeer wrote:I honestly believe that if Americans had consistently shown a willingness to go third party then the system would have been changed by now.
Then you are honestly wrong. Read what I said there, the problem is not a willingness to vote third party, it's that the US voting system makes it virtually impossible for a successful third party to exist.
Third Parties do exist, and in some places are successful. They have been elected as US Senators and US Representatives, as Governors, to State Legislatures, to county governments, and to city governments.
They haven't been elected to the office of POTUS, but that doesn't mean that there is no point voting for them.
And then you have stupid election laws like we have in Oklahoma where I HAVE to vote for the Libertarian Candidate for POTUS if I want to be able to vote for any Libertarian Party candidates for any other office in this state for the next 2 years, because if the Gary Johnson doesn't get 2.5% of the vote the entire party will no longer be recognized and will not be able to run candidates for any office in the state.
Which is why I'm voting Gary Johnson, not because I'm voting for HIM, not because I'm voting against Hillary, not because I'm voting against Trump. I am voting for him because this is Oklahoma, Trump will win no matter what, so if I'm casting a meaningless vote for POTUS I might as well cast it in a way that will result in having more choices for the next 2 years. Because down-ballot offices are where politicians make the most difference in our everyday lives, and down-ballot offices are where third parties have had the most success.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:37:59
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Lord of the Fleet
|
d-usa wrote:
Third Parties do exist, and in some places are successful. They have been elected as US Senators and US Representatives, as Governors, to State Legislatures, to county governments, and to city governments.
And let's not forget that time the Bull Moose Party gave the Republicans a serious challenge to their continued existence as a major party.
If a third party can get someone with enough charisma and star power, they become major players.
Oh, and Trump has declared that Hillery will start WW3.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37766786
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 01:38:29
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 01:51:09
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
About the third-party thing: if you think that third party candidates are viable please read and understand this. The reason third party candidates are doomed has to do with the basic structure of how US elections, especially US presidential elections, are run. It is not simply a matter of people deciding they want to have more than two parties.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 01:52:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:06:51
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
IMO the real reason third parties are doomed is because we don't have any good ones.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:17:03
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:About the third-party thing: if you think that third party candidates are viable please read and understand this. The reason third party candidates are doomed has to do with the basic structure of how US elections, especially US presidential elections, are run. It is not simply a matter of people deciding they want to have more than two parties.
Yet, I have a Green serving on my city council.
Go figure.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:18:10
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:Yet, I have a Green serving on my city council.
Go figure.
It is not literally impossible to have third-party candidates, especially in local areas where voting patterns deviate from the national trend and offices where turnout and interest are low. And the law doesn't claim to be absolute, only a very strong trend. But an occasional exception to the rule does not translate to national-level elections. Automatically Appended Next Post: NinthMusketeer wrote:IMO the real reason third parties are doomed is because we don't have any good ones.
No. Again, read the link. Third parties are doomed because of the structure of US elections. Even if we somehow had the best possible third party, one that somehow won the election, it would simply result in one of the previous major parties dying and being absorbed into the new party and/or the other major party and the two party system continuing on with different parties.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 02:20:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:22:12
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:Yet, I have a Green serving on my city council.
Go figure.
It is not literally impossible to have third-party candidates, especially in local areas where voting patterns deviate from the national trend and offices where turnout and interest are low. And the law doesn't claim to be absolute, only a very strong trend. But an occasional exception to the rule does not translate to national-level elections.
Again:
d-usa wrote:. They have been elected as US Senators and US Representatives, as Governors, to State Legislatures, to county governments, and to city governments.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:34:59
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:d-usa wrote:. They have been elected as US Senators and US Representatives, as Governors, to State Legislatures, to county governments, and to city governments.
VERY RARELY.
Currently, out of the 535 members of congress, there are exactly two independents, both of them democrats in all but name (one of whom just ran for president as a democrat). Out of the 50 governors there is a single independent who previously ran for governor as a republican and did some weird campaign merger thing with the democrats. The most successful third-party presidential candidate in the modern era, a feat that hasn't been duplicated since, won less than 20% of the vote and arguably accomplished exactly what I claimed: primarily drawing votes from one major party and handing an easy win to the other party.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 02:37:26
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:46:58
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
D-USA is talking about grass roots politics, which contain tens of thousands of elected officials. Mayors. District attorneys. Judges. City council.
I'm sure third party is still minority in these areas, but they're a much larger portion than seen in Federal politics.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:47:23
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:d-usa wrote:. They have been elected as US Senators and US Representatives, as Governors, to State Legislatures, to county governments, and to city governments.
VERY RARELY.
Currently, out of the 535 members of congress, there are exactly two independents, both of them democrats in all but name (one of whom just ran for president as a democrat). Out of the 50 governors there is a single independent who previously ran for governor as a republican and did some weird campaign merger thing with the democrats. The most successful third-party presidential candidate in the modern era, a feat that hasn't been duplicated since, won less than 20% of the vote and arguably accomplished exactly what I claimed: primarily drawing votes from one major party and handing an easy win to the other party.
And during that same modern era, third party candidates have been somewhat successful in other levels of government:
Since the end of Reconstruction, there have been a total of 30 U.S. Senators, 111 U.S. Representatives, and 28 Governors that weren't affiliated with a major party. There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members and 131 Green Party members.
You claim that Third Parties will never be successful because they won't win the presidency, and I pointed out that Third Parties have been successful because of all the other offices they have been elected to. Your only rebuttal is to repeat "they won't win POTUS, they won't win POTUS, they won't win POTUS" over and over again no matter how many instances of Third Party candidates winning every other office besides POTUS.
And that's just talking about actual physical real life human beings belonging to Third Parties being elected by actual real life human voters in actual real life elections to real life offices. We are not even talking about abstract concepts here, like Third Parties forcing a shift in the policies of the major parties in order to regain the voters that left them in favor of the Third Parties that advocate for those policies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:50:27
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:You claim that Third Parties will never be successful because they won't win the presidency, and I pointed out that Third Parties have been successful because of all the other offices they have been elected to. Your only rebuttal is to repeat "they won't win POTUS, they won't win POTUS, they won't win POTUS" over and over again no matter how many instances of Third Party candidates winning every other office besides POTUS.
Yes, I'm talking about the presidential election, because that's what people advocating third-party votes keep talking about. If you want it to stop being "POTUS, POTUS, POTUS" then tell them to stop saying "vote third party instead of Clinton/Trump, won't it be nice if there's a viable third party". Automatically Appended Next Post: d-usa wrote:And during that same modern era, third party candidates have been somewhat successful in other levels of government:
Since the end of Reconstruction, there have been a total of 30 U.S. Senators, 111 U.S. Representatives, and 28 Governors that weren't affiliated with a major party. There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members and 131 Green Party members.
That's a rather generous definition of "successful". It's a pretty small total number, and most of them are from before 1950 and/or ran as a major party candidate (building up personal followers and incumbent advantages in the process) before switching. And counting Sanders is kind of dishonest, since he's a democrat in all but name.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 02:54:35
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:56:43
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Let's see and ask the audience then, get the input from other people in this thread: 1) Are you voting Third Party for POTUS 2) Are you voting Third Party down ballot 3) Have you voted Third Party in the past 4) Are any Third Party elected officials in your city/county/state government. That should let us know if people advocating third party votes are only advocating for POTUS.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 02:57:13
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 02:58:39
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
To put the "success" numbers into context, over 12,000 people have served in congress. Having ~150 successful third-party candidates, many of them previously affiliated with a major party, is not a very impressive rebuttal to the idea that the two-party system makes it extremely difficult for third-party candidates to be elected.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:04:04
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:To put the "success" numbers into context, over 12,000 people have served in congress. Having ~150 successful third-party candidates, many of them previously affiliated with a major party, is not a very impressive rebuttal to the idea that the two-party system makes it extremely difficult for third-party candidates to be elected.
1) I know that you are better at statistics than to compare the number of people serving since 1789 to the number of people elected since 1877. The percentage is low enough, you don't need to use crappy statistics to make them worse.
2) Well, at least you managed to get off the POTUS only bandwagon and now at least acknowledge that Third Parties do manage to get elected to national office at times. Next step are acknowledging that State/County/City elections are a thing and that Third Parties also get elected to offices there.
Edit:
A quick look at the number of "other" elected officials in Congress since inception:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 03:09:02
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:17:31
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
d-usa wrote:1) I know that you are better at statistics than to compare the number of people serving since 1789 to the number of people elected since 1877. The percentage is low enough, you don't need to use crappy statistics to make them worse.
You're right, I missed the date there. The time period since 1877 is ~60% of the total time, so we'll say it's ~60% of the total people who have served in congress (it should be more because congress was smaller in the past, but I'm too lazy to get a better number). That's about ~7,200 people, of which ~150 have been from a third party. Winning 2% of the seats in congress over the past 140 years is hardly a compelling argument for the viability of third parties, especially when a good chunk of that 2% is people who started as members of one of the major parties.
2) Well, at least you managed to get off the POTUS only bandwagon and now at least acknowledge that Third Parties do manage to get elected to national office at times. Next step are acknowledging that State/County/City elections are a thing and that Third Parties also get elected to offices there.
Again, I'm not talking about those elections either way because that's not the context of this discussion. Even if you want to broaden the context from voting third party as an alternative to Clinton and Trump this is still the US politics thread, which is mainly about national-level issues and events. Your local town elections might break the trend, but nobody seems to be discussing them here.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:21:39
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:
Again, I'm not talking about those elections either way because that's not the context of this discussion. Even if you want to broaden the context from voting third party as an alternative to Clinton and Trump this is still the US politics thread, which is mainly about national-level issues and events. Your local town elections might break the trend, but nobody seems to be discussing them here.
I think we have all talked about the importance of down ballot races in this thread though, and people who are voting third party have said that they are doing it across the ballot. That's why I'm hoping more of the people who are voting for someone other than Clinton/Trump might chime in on their plans.
My ballot ended up being a bit all over the place. Voted for one Republican, one Democrat, and then a couple Libertarians and a couple independent candidates.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:26:33
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Also, look at the Progressive Party (one of the parties to successfully elect people to congress) as an example of what I'm talking about: formed as a split from one of the major parties, primarily drew support from that party, and handed an easy win to the opposing major party by doing so. And soon after the party declined and disappeared, with most of its members (and all of its members in congress) being absorbed by one of the major parties.
Same thing with the Populist Party: it existed for a relatively short time, saw little success (a few members in congress and ~10% of the presidential vote at its peak), and was absorbed by one of the major parties.
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:27:54
Subject: Re:US Politics
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:1) I know that you are better at statistics than to compare the number of people serving since 1789 to the number of people elected since 1877. The percentage is low enough, you don't need to use crappy statistics to make them worse.
You're right, I missed the date there. The time period since 1877 is ~60% of the total time, so we'll say it's ~60% of the total people who have served in congress (it should be more because congress was smaller in the past, but I'm too lazy to get a better number). That's about ~7,200 people, of which ~150 have been from a third party. Winning 2% of the seats in congress over the past 140 years is hardly a compelling argument for the viability of third parties, especially when a good chunk of that 2% is people who started as members of one of the major parties.
But even though it makes no statistical difference on the success of the major parties, going from 1% to 2% makes the third parties TWICE as effective. And that just makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside
Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote:Also, look at the Progressive Party (one of the parties to successfully elect people to congress) as an example of what I'm talking about: formed as a split from one of the major parties, primarily drew support from that party, and handed an easy win to the opposing major party by doing so. And soon after the party declined and disappeared, with most of its members (and all of its members in congress) being absorbed by one of the major parties.
Same thing with the Populist Party: it existed for a relatively short time, saw little success (a few members in congress and ~10% of the presidential vote at its peak), and was absorbed by one of the major parties.
I think with that we are probably moving away from the "can third parties be successful" discussion and moving more towards the "what is the purpose of third parties" discussion.
If the purpose of the third parties is simply to have a "I don't want to be a D/R" party, then third parties don't have much success for the most part, other than still existing as a "not D" and "not R" options.
If the purpose of the third parties is to exist as a means of advocating for policies that are not being represented by the major parties, then I would argue that being absorbed by the major parties would actually count as a success. In this case the third party wouldn't exist simply for the sake of existing, but it would be to draw supporters of Policy X and to show to the major parties that by not supporting Policy X they will not get the support of those voters. If one of the major parties then adopts Policy X, and the Third Party voters move to the major party, then the Third Party was successful even if it now no longer exists.
I do think that the 2nd scenario is the more frequent reason third parties exist, although I'm sure that there are also lots of people joining a third party just to be "edgy" or something. Some third parties have policy positions that resonate and they get adopted by the major parties, some third parties have policy positions that don't resonate.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 03:36:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 03:41:01
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
I'm not even sure what the point being discussed is right now. But to answer d-usa's questions: No, No, Yes, and N/A since many of those positions are nonpartisan here.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 04:43:23
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
OK, has everyone accepted HRC will be the next president? OK good, let move on.
Because when someone wins the Presidency unopposed, it's a very dangerous thing, and I believe our energy is better spent on keeping Clinton'in check than in going back and forth over an inevitable loser like Trump.
Like, for realises, we expelled the immense danger...it's time to focus on the present danger.
Sure, I will vote for Hillary to keep Gropy McRapestein out of office, but what happens after that? We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 04:46:54
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 04:51:46
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
I wouldn't call the Republicans no opposition at all, far from it. Nor do I believe the Democrats would just give her a blank check. Each of those congresspeople has their own goals after all, and the party splits on voting all the time.
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 05:12:55
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:I wouldn't call the Republicans no opposition at all, far from it. Nor do I believe the Democrats would just give her a blank check. Each of those congresspeople has their own goals after all, and the party splits on voting all the time.
I'd argue that the Republicans are indeed, no opposition at all. In as much as the Republican Part even exists anymore, they are the remnants of an unholy alliance between big business and the religious right, and neither knows who to turn to for leadership.
Really, Clinton is about to win with a big anti-Trump,anti-Republican mandate, so its from her left that she is most vulnerable as a President.
I'm not saying leftists should oppose President Clinton out of spite, only that the left is the only group left standing that can really oppose Clinton with any kind of credibility.
The right wing is dead. We just saw Trump crush it to dust with nothing more than bloviation. They lost, because they wanted to lose.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 05:15:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 05:18:55
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
jasper76 wrote:We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Why? What specific policies on her agenda need to be opposed? Or do you want opposition just for the sake of having opposition?
|
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 05:25:27
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Thane of Dol Guldur
|
Peregrine wrote: jasper76 wrote:We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Why? What specific policies on her agenda need to be opposed? Or do you want opposition just for the sake of having opposition?
The latter mostly. I am an ordinary person living under the whims of my government, and I don't want those whims to go unopposed, even if I back the President generally speaking.
What I'm saying is the Republicans, through their actions over he last 8 years and through their current nomination, are no longer a credible opposing force (ref. Boy who cred wolf). So going forward, the only opposition the US public will think is credible will come from the left.
As a self-governing people, we can never relinquish our right to oppose our governors, or else we are not self-governing.
Maybe that made less sense than what I said before,but I hope it clears up my thinking a bit
Long story short: do you trust Republicans to keep Democrats honest? Of course not, you can't trust Republicans with anything anymore, because they have forfeited their credibility as a party. So the only real opposition remaining is from the left IME.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's quite possible I am talking out of my a$$.tonight, too :p
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/26 06:17:46
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 09:03:51
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
jasper76 wrote:The latter mostly. I am an ordinary person living under the whims of my government, and I don't want those whims to go unopposed, even if I back the President generally speaking.
Eeh so did I read this right? Without even knowing what said president is doing you want president be opposed?
Opposition just for sake of opposition is extremely stupid. Oppose what needs to be opposed, support what needs to be supported. Don't oppose just to oppose.
|
2024 painted/bought: 109/109 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 10:46:02
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
jasper76 wrote:As a self-governing people, we can never relinquish our right to oppose our governors, or else we are not self-governing.
Do you mean oppose or do you mean challenge? If it's opposition for the sake of opposition then you are no better than the elected Republicans who have refused to carry out their civic responsibilities for no other reason than "thanks Obama."
If on the other hand you mean challenge then you are quite right. It is normal in landslides (which this election has the chance to be) that the less mainstream elements of a party uses that strength to challenge itself and its leaders. Sometimes this is good as it can swing the center point of a nations politics one way or the other. Equally it can also be bad for the same reason (just look at David Cameron having to allow the Brexit vote just to keep his party, which was substantially stronger than any other political force at the time, in check).
So yes, with an ineffective bunch of clowns wearing the red vest of US politics, it is up to the blue side to challenge and police itself.
But that's not the same as opposing Clinton.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/10/26 11:55:40
Subject: US Politics
|
 |
Courageous Grand Master
-
|
jasper76 wrote:OK, has everyone accepted HRC will be the next president? OK good, let move on.
Because when someone wins the Presidency unopposed, it's a very dangerous thing, and I believe our energy is better spent on keeping Clinton'in check than in going back and forth over an inevitable loser like Trump.
Like, for realises, we expelled the immense danger...it's time to focus on the present danger.
Sure, I will vote for Hillary to keep Gropy McRapestein out of office, but what happens after that? We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Agreed, and we can start by scrutinizing HRC's plans for a no fly zone in Syria!
Utter madness from start to finish. Fraught with danger, and impracticable on every level.
God almighty, I think this is the first time in this campaign that Trump has been right about something. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: jasper76 wrote:We can't just give her a blank check. The Republicans are no opposition at all, so the leftists must be happy to take up opposition against President Clinton, or noone will.
Why? What specific policies on her agenda need to be opposed? Or do you want opposition just for the sake of having opposition?
See my comment above for a HRC policy that needs to bite the dust and fast.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/26 11:56:39
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd |
|
 |
 |
|