Political discussion thread

The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: Political parties are red herrings.  They are mere sports teams that do not serve us. I agree with your five sentences, but must point out that terms like "hardship", "undeservedly" and "unjustly" are open to very broad interpretation.  So while we may all agree on these statements, we will all have differing opinions as to what is unjust, or what is deserved, or what constitutes a hardship. You are quite right, Chester.  I initially reconsidered those terms, but they are, alas, the best we have, I think.  The Doctor wrote: Your statement above though, I absolutely agree with.  Although we are diametrically opposed on many issues, I do not believe either party truly represents the country or its people.  And they are practically the same party, in fact I often refer to Obama as Bush Lite.  I wonder why you have not considered the Green Party.  I listened to Jill Stein the other night.  She sounded like your kind of candidate.  Forgive me if we've already discussed her. I like a lot of what Jill Stein has to say.  Alas, the chances of her or a Gary Johnson or a Rocky Anderson (not so much a fan of these last two, but at least they'd be different) winning the election is virtually nil.  On the other hand, I may end up voting for Stein, because a vote for Obama here in Texas would be wasted anyway, so I might as well vote my conscious.

Hopefully you vote when you are conscious. 

I am in NC, a swing state, and I'm not voting Romney.  Nor is my wife.  The Republican Party could have scored my vote by nominating Ron Paul.  They shunned him (and, I believe, did so furtively and immorally), and so shunned me (and many other possible voters).

We must get past this:

1. Your vote for (insert third party here) is a vote for (incumbent).

2. You must abandon your principles and vote for the R or D who comes closest to your beliefs.

3. You must vote for the lesser of two evils.

I am done with this mindset.  No offense Logan, I appreciate you, but this election I have elected to not vote for a Republicrat unless he is extremely close to what I think needs to be done in this country.

The only way to get "third" parties on the ticket is to convince more and more people to vote for them and not the establishment.  Therefore I cannot be a hypocrite.

Epignosis wrote: I am done with this mindset.  No offense Logan, I appreciate you, but this election I have elected to not vote for a Republicrat unless he is extremely close to what I think needs to be done in this country. The only way to get "third" parties on the ticket is to convince more and more people to vote for them and not the establishment.  Therefore I cannot be a hypocrite.

Of course I don't take offense to that. I admire you greatly for sticking to your principles. I have chosen to vote for Romney this time, because I like him and because I believe Obama to be uniquely disastrous (and the election will be extremely close,) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's the last time I vote Republican. I am mostly done with the lesser of two evils mindset as well.

Argonaught wrote: How do we best achieve the outline above? True democracy would be the key.

Really? I think it would result in a tyranny of the majority.


Edited by thellama73 - October 28 2012 at 19:09

^ Since 2:00 p.m. central time here. 

So how do we convince more people to vote third party?

HackettFan wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ Since 2:00 p.m. central time here.  So how do we convince more people to vote third party? It's hard to go straight to the presidency when you don't have anyone of the same third party in the house or senate.

That's like pointing out that it's hard to make omelets when you don't have any eggs or cheese.

And frankly, I'd be okay with a lot of eggs and cheese, if you catch my meaning. 

Epignosis wrote: HackettFan wrote: The Doctor wrote: ^ Since 2:00 p.m. central time here.  So how do we convince more people to vote third party? It's hard to go straight to the presidency when you don't have anyone of the same third party in the house or senate. That's like pointing out that it's hard to make omelets when you don't have any eggs or cheese.And frankly, I'd be okay with a lot of eggs and cheese, if you catch my meaning.

Well, someone could have pointed that out to Ralph Nader or any of the other third party candidates that never seem to pop up except in the Presidential races. There needs to be some party infrastructure and good branding. Nader had some of this, but it wasn't nearly enough. A third party governor would help too.

Nope.  I don't waste a second of precious drinking time on Sundays.  

The problem with a lot of the third parties, take Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, as examples.  Both are probably seen as much too radical to be electable.  While a lot of people complain about the status quo, when it comes time to vote, they don't seem to want to rock the boat too much and end up voting for the status quo.  While I don't think we'll see a third party President any time in the near future, I would love to see more of them winning Congressional and Senate seats.  On the state level at first, and then at the federal level.  The problem then becomes, once the third parties become "normalized" in society, will they begin to take on the same attributes as the Republicans and Democrats?  And become nothing more than a third party of the same crap?

Epignosis wrote: Democrats and Republicans, we are a party of principle (government out of all things that does not involve the direct preservation of life, liberty and property).

I think the principles are simplistic and over sold. They gloss over how to resolve Interests that are in conflict. Democracy vs. tyranny of the majority was one conflict that came up earlier today. Everything is a matter of balance.

I didn't know about the Libertarian Governor! As far as the branding I think they have a way to go precisely because I didn't know about him.

Democracy, yes, there's nothing like democracy. 

Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Nope.  I don't waste a second of precious drinking time on Sundays.   The problem with a lot of the third parties, take Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, as examples.  Both are probably seen as much too radical to be electable.  While a lot of people complain about the status quo, when it comes time to vote, they don't seem to want to rock the boat too much and end up voting for the status quo.  While I don't think we'll see a third party President any time in the near future, I would love to see more of them winning Congressional and Senate seats.  On the state level at first, and then at the federal level.  The problem then becomes, once the third parties become "normalized" in society, will they begin to take on the same attributes as the Republicans and Democrats?  And become nothing more than a third party of the same crap? Precisely my point- I would rather have more "eggs and cheese" (that is, more seats in Congress) than a president right now.  That's where it begins.  As for the problem you propose, I think the answer is yes and no.  As I mentioned above, the Libertarian party is based on principle and not opportunity.  Other parties (even though I disagree with them) have their principles.  The Republicrat system seeks opportunity, not opportunity to adhere to principle. That said, no party is immune from corruption.  I would be naive not to admit that.

I feel like once a third party sees that it has a real chance to get elected, they will start compromising to draw in "moderates" the way the two main parties do now. I hope I am wrong though.