from Sh&t My Dad Says...

[mattkime]

third parties are a heck of a lot more possible if we change the primary system. some places let everyone run and if one candidate gets x% of the vote then they win. if not, there's another election between the top two. this also eliminates parties selecting extreme candidates in the primary round.

[Gutenberg]

I think we will have three parties very soon, but that's because the Republican party will split in two. It can't possibly stay as it is. I think we will have Democrats, Republicans and Teas.

[(vikm)]

$tevie wrote:
[quote=Black]
[quote=decay]
"Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. Good enough for a passing laugh in a sitcom but that's about it. Not all presidential contenders make silly claims like "knowing what's best for 300 million people." Our current president has been clear from the start that he sees his responsibility as trying to represent the interests of the majority of Americans, and drawing on experts in many areas to determine the best course of action for those considerations. If the public is not willing to vote for someone unless they purport to have all the answers, then it's pretty clear who the assholes are.

The "all politicians are _______" attitude is something lazy people hide behind when they don't want to make the effort to find out who the good public servants are. :agree:
And while I won't go so far as to say "all", far too many of them are in fact "special interest backed, no good _____________". It's not hard to go back through even recent high level politicians and see this. They are supposed to be cream of the crop representatives. Bush and Edwards come to mind. In my opinion, it's lazy to call people lazy that are of the opinion that "all" (when they really don't mean all) politicians "____________". Especially when there is reason to believe that many are miscreants or whatever based on evidence. I think many are taking things too literally on this topic.

[Black]

(vikm) wrote:
[quote=$tevie]
[quote=Black]
[quote=decay]
"Anyone who thinks they know what's best for 300 million people is a titanic asshole. So we're just voting for king of the assholes."

That's an incredibly ignorant statement. Good enough for a passing laugh in a sitcom but that's about it. Not all presidential contenders make silly claims like "knowing what's best for 300 million people." Our current president has been clear from the start that he sees his responsibility as trying to represent the interests of the majority of Americans, and drawing on experts in many areas to determine the best course of action for those considerations. If the public is not willing to vote for someone unless they purport to have all the answers, then it's pretty clear who the assholes are.

The "all politicians are _______" attitude is something lazy people hide behind when they don't want to make the effort to find out who the good public servants are. :agree:
And while I won't go so far as to say "all", far too many of them are in fact "special interest backed, no good _____________". It's not hard to go back through even recent high level politicians and see this. They are supposed to be cream of the crop representatives. Bush and Edwards come to mind. In my opinion, it's lazy to call people lazy that are of the opinion that "all" (when they really don't mean all) politicians "____________". Especially when there is reason to believe that many are miscreants or whatever based on evidence. I think many are taking things too literally on this topic.
Nonsense. It's lazy to say that it's lazy to call people lazy that are of the opinion that "all" (when they really don't mean all) politicians "____________".

[$tevie]

This thread is living proof that broad generalities can be argued about by using broad generalities. What fun.

[$tevie]

What I truly believe is that the issues we are grappling with can't be solved by a third party because the entire process is driven by money, which third parties do not have.

Everyone is mistaking our problems as being political when they are in fact economic. Occupy is right about the 1% and the 1% is not going to allow third parties. I choose to work within the two-party system but to be frank, I don't know how to stop the train wreck of a wealthy class run amok. I do know that the Democrats are the better choice because they at least acknowledge the right of the common man to exist. I have never accepted the premise that we were put on this earth to make the rich richer. I don't understand the belief that the wealthy are benevolent and would not try to screw us all if given half a chance. Just ask my husband's father, if you can speak with the dead, how well he was treated in the coal mines of Pennsylvania back before unions (he started working at 11 years old because HIS father died in the mines).

hal posted an article from the NYT today that encapsulates how I feel about the power of the wealthy in this country. Until the disparity of wealth is addressed, we will not see any real change.

[Manlove]

Stevie, as history has shown, the only way to address the disparity of wealth is for the poor to rise up and physically remove the wealth from the rich.
There has never been another way.
When the rich own everything, the means of production (/extortion), the police force, education and healthcare, they have no stimulus to give it back to the people. Why would they? If they can keep us scared and complicit and make laws that allow them to feed us sawdust and shit (really, look at what you eat), why would they do anything that does anyone any good apart from themselves?
They can afford not to be altruistic. They are above the foul stinking masses: they don't need to be concerned with their neighbor's child having enough to eat that he doesn't try to steal bread from your table.

[Dennis S]

"Until the disparity of wealth is addressed, we will not see any real change." - $tevie

This will not happen until the electorate smartens up, which, unfortunately seems impossible. As W. C. Fields (I think) said, "You can't smarten up a chump."

[Speedy]

Nope, the Teas have been killed by their Republican handlers. The baggers were getting a little bit out of the Republicans control.

Gutenberg wrote:
I think we will have three parties very soon, but that's because the Republican party will split in two. It can't possibly stay as it is. I think we will have Democrats, Republicans and Teas.