|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2008 : 14:15:27 [Permalink]
|
| Simon another link for you, if you want to take the time. Again, while I take a look at what you've given me to read. If you check it out, be sure to look at the links at the bottom for more. Enough for now. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2008 : 14:22:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by H. HumbertI guess I can't fathom why anyone would do such a thing on purpose.
|
Actually, I appreciate that, and even though I don't think we're on Usenet anymore, I think I might try it for a while and see if I can lower the dosage on my psych meds.
|
I sort of agree with HH here. It's like that old Carson routine, Carnac the Magnificent.
Good for comedy. Less so for discussing politics.
(But then, what is good for discussing politics? Besides alcohol, that is...) |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2008 : 18:55:08 [Permalink]
|
Strange behavior for someone becoming more "authoritarian."
By Ian James, Associated Press Writer
CARACAS, Venezuela — President Hugo Chavez granted amnesty Monday to many opponents accused of supporting a failed 2002 coup that briefly drove him from power. Chavez said he signed an amnesty decree that would also pardon others accused of attempting to overthrow his government in recent years.
"It's a matter of turning the page," Chavez said in a telephone call to state television on New Year's Eve. "We would like a country that moves toward peace."
Chavez read aloud the new law, which grants amnesty to those who drafted or signed a decree recognizing an interim government that briefly replaced him during the 2002 coup. Chavez was ousted by dissident military officers, but was returned to the presidency by loyalist generals within two days amid street protests by his supporters. |
The above is from 12/31/07 USA Today.
From the Venezuelan Information Office:
| FACT: Human Rights Watch deems the 2002 coup against the elected government “the most dramatic setback” for human rights in Venezuela in the last decade, but criticizes President Chavez's own public condemnations of the unconstitutional overthrow as examples of “political discrimination” against the opposition. On the contrary, President Chávez last year pardoned political opponents who backed a failed 2002 coup against his democratically elected government. “It's a matter of turning the page,” Chávez said. "We want there to be a strong ideological and political debate -- but in peace.”[i] In this spirit, the government has often welcomed input from the opposition, for example, inviting the leaders of student protests to address the National Assembly. |
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/10/2008 18:56:52 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2008 : 18:14:19 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo.....
Tell me, what is the point of continuing to support a corrupt system?
How will we move the Democratic Party anywhere but to the right by continuing to encourage them to serve only the wealthy? |
1. The point of voting, if that is the intent of your question, is to make a tiny but necessary contribution to the maintenance of representational democracy that is supposed to be the heart of this country's political system! If no one votes, or if everyone votes a write -in or a Nader, the whole system fails eventually.
It is essential that we have a clear majority, however small, in a two-party democracy. What happened in 2000 is an abomination! I would say that, even if the reverse had happened, if Gore had won with a popular minority but an electoral majority. It is not Democracy!
In a three, or multiple party system, democracy; a simple majority must prevail. The electoral system really starts to fall apart with three, four or five candidates receiving roughly equal popular votes. The potential for fraud, dishonesty, and vote manipulation increases exponentially.
The system is not corrupt, it is merely outdated; and the politicians of both parties have become manifestly more of both. Obviously, many more safeguards need to be put in place, and if we keep the electoral college, some form of run-off resolution of near-ties must be implemented!
2. Please elaborate on your allegation of "moving the Democratic Party to the right" and "encouraging them to serve the wealthy". I don't know exactly to what you are referring, and I cannot appropriately respond.
Exactly in what way are we encouraging the Democratic party to serve the wealthy, aside from specific examples of corrupt Democratic politicians, which I freely admit? - however, I am certain I could provide at least two examples of corrupt Republicans to every one Democrat that you could identify!
I have just returned from a week in Edmonton. I talked to dozens of Canadians about the US election - in which there is enormous interest in Canada.
Almost without exception, the Canadian attitude is this:
"Most of the Republicans that are talking to the pollsters are saying they are neutral or Democratic, but when they go into the voting booth they will vote against the black man, because he is black. I was amazed at the prevalence of this opinion, the so-called "Bradley effect", in Canada!
It appeared to me that Canadians were overwhelmingly hoping that the Democrats win, both in the Presidential and in the Congressional races, but are pretty apprehensive that the polls are bogus because of deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Republican respondents. They see this as Rovian orders to the troops, not spontaneous! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/14/2008 20:20:54 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2008 : 22:03:23 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
In a three, or multiple party system, democracy; a simple majority must prevail. The electoral system really starts to fall apart with three, four or five candidates receiving roughly equal popular votes. The potential for fraud, dishonesty, and vote manipulation increases exponentially.
|
I'm going to disagree with you on this bng. If the election laws are stated simply, and require mandatory runoff elections until you have a single candidate winning a majority of the votes(as in 50.1% or more) cast, then your concerns evaporate.
The founding fathers were split on the idea of political parties. Personally I agree with President #1, political parties are a bad idea. Just look how polarized we have become. No matter who wins an election now the opposition feels cheated. You can't have a close election (2000/2004) where the losing side is anything but pissed off. The 2000 election did, I think, permanent damage to our nation. The SCOTUS vastly overstepped it's constitutional authority, the political parties assumed powers they have no business assuming, etc.
Just imagine 2000 in the absence of political parties. The two candidates come to Florida, realize the ballots are drastically flawed, and agree to a runoff election. Florida, mortally emberassed for fucking things up so bad, picks up the tab and two weeks later we have a runoff election between the two to vote earners from the first ballot.
That situation can never occur in the world of political parties. The republicans knew very well that if Pat Buchanan hadn't been on the confusing butterfly ballot in S Florida the results would have been different. They knew very well that if Nader's name were off the ballot that the results would have been different. So there is no way in hell they would agree to do the right thing.
Political parties have subverted democracy. In 2000 they shot it in the back of the head and left it's rotting corpse sitting out in the Florida sun, and the stench still lingers. 9/11 blotted the travesty of the FL election from people's minds, gave them something else to worry about.
Don't get me started on how wedge politics by political parties has made it impossible to have a rational debate with people you disagree with... just look at Bill Scott.
| It appeared to me that Canadians were overwhelmingly hoping that the Democrats win, both in the Presidential and in the Congressional races, but are pretty apprehensive that the polls are bogus because of deliberate misrepresentation on the part of Republican respondents. They see this as Rovian orders to the troops, not spontaneous! |
I'm not sure what benefit being down 7-12 points in the polls gets you...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 01:45:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
If no one votes, or if everyone votes a write -in or a Nader, the whole system fails eventually. |
If everyone votes for Nader, then Nader wins.
The system has failed the people already.
It is essential that we have a clear majority, however small, in a two-party democracy. What happened in 2000 is an abomination! I would say that, even if the reverse had happened, if Gore had won with a popular minority but an electoral majority. It is not Democracy!
|
I don't care what your definition of democracy is, if the government does not serve the people, then the people need to change it.
In a three, or multiple party system, democracy; a simple majority must prevail. The electoral system really starts to fall apart with three, four or five candidates receiving roughly equal popular votes. The potential for fraud, dishonesty, and vote manipulation increases exponentially.
|
Again, I don't care how many parties you have, in fact, no parties is probably better. If the government does not serve the people, then the people need to change it.
The system is not corrupt,
|
The system is presently being run by a gang of criminals, with very little opposition except for fighting over the spoils. I'd say that qualifies as corrupt.
it is merely outdated; and the politicians of both parties have become manifestly more of both. Obviously, many more safeguards need to be put in place, and if we keep the electoral college, some form of run-off resolution of near-ties must be implemented!
|
That might help, as well as reform of the corporate media.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 08:49:42 [Permalink]
|
While I would be happy to see more viable third parties entering the fray, looking around, I don't see any country that doesn't have political parties. How else would people know how a candidate generally come down on certain issues? Both of our parties represent a coalition of smaller interest groups that mostly identify with the larger party. The Dems have many more of these smaller groups forming a coalition party than do the Republicans. I would like to see smaller coalitions form making a third party viable, but that third party is still going to be a political party. People need to see the platform that these coalitions put forth, and the parties need a name.
I have always been a fan of a more parliamentary style of government with their shifting coalitions of smaller parties choosing for themselves who to line up with. In that way, the concerns of the smaller parties will be addressed or they will bolt, making the umbrella party not electable, or not the ruling party. That would remove the strangle hold of a two party system and greatly boost the influence of third parties. Also, the third parties should get representation in congress based on the votes they get no matter who they throw in with. They could actually run as viable candidates no matter who they throw in with to form a ruling party.
Ultimately, there will be a ruling party, but they will be much more beholden to the interests of the smaller parties who put them there, (constituencies of voters) than they are now.
Will that work here? I don't know. I don't even know if it's constitutional, but I also don't see why it isn't. I do see it as giving the people more of a say on what direction the umbrella party will take, being that if one of the smaller parties bolts, the political landscape would actually change.
I'm just sort of musing here. Throwing out an idea that seems to be the norm in Europe. One vote per person without any political party to vote for doesn't seem workable to me. Smaller and yet more powerful coalitions do, because they will needed to form a majority party and can form new ruling coalitions if they don't like the way things are going.
Come to think of it, I really doubt if the above is constitutional because the election process is laid out there. We would need to amend the constitution to allow for the formation of ruling parties based on coalition alignments after the vote...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Without taking away from the importance of changing electoral colleges and run-off votes and parties, etc., I just think they take a second seat to how we get our information.
Much has been said about Palin's crazy religious ideas, but as long as a "reasonable" liberal can get away with the following remarks without anyone batting an eye, we are in trouble. There is no respect for reality.
| May God bless all of you, and most of all, for both of us, selfishly, may God protect our troops. |
Would the media in a reasonable world allow anyone running for dog warden or "higher" to display such a warped view of reality so easily? These are Joe Biden's closing remarks at the last debate. Does anyone have any idea what this means?
Would the media in a reasonable world allow a dog warden to have such a warped view of reality?
That's without talking about how the corporate media slants political views in this country. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:33:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Come to think of it, I really doubt if the above is constitutional because the election process is laid out there. We would need to amend the constitution to allow for the formation of ruling parties based on coalition alignments after the vote...
|
I don't think the Constitution says a word about political parties, does it? Does it even talk about electoral colleges? Man, need to brush up on 4th grade civics.
yup |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/15/2008 09:39:31 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:34:44 [Permalink]
|
Kil, political parties are mentioned exactly zero times in our constitution. So you can have 2, or 20, and its not a violation.
Personally I think they are a bad idea. The harm they have done, and continue to do, outweighs their usefulness.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:43:32 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
Does anyone have any idea what this means? |
Yeah. Bidden has a son in Iraq right now. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:45:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Kil, political parties are mentioned exactly zero times in our constitution. So you can have 2, or 20, and its not a violation.
Personally I think they are a bad idea. The harm they have done, and continue to do, outweighs their usefulness.
|
I think it's fine for people of like minds to band together to get policy implemented. But that's not what the 2 main parties are in the US. Perhaps if federal elections were 100% government funded, and all advertising outside what was paid by those federal dollars illegal, then the power of political parties would be reduced to collecting signatures to get candidates on a ballot and to do grass roots door to door style campaigning. Combine that with run-off elections and proportional allocation of electoral votes and you'd probably see many more parties with their power difused proportionally. That would be a formula for better government, IMHO. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 10/15/2008 09:46:41 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:47:13 [Permalink]
|
| More on the the electoral college . |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:48:31 [Permalink]
|
You can't really do without political parties, though. Sooner rather than later, similar minded people will start allying themselves pooling their resources. It's just much more efficient.
And, similarly, sooner or later, two parties will rise to prominence as the most likely winners and smaller party will start bargaining with these parties. These smaller parties are not powerful enough to win an election, but they can make a difference by typing the balance one side or the other and will bargain that (gaining seats in a particular administration or advisory positions or seat in the supreme court).
Soon; you will have two main coalitions formed by the two major parties and their satellites and you will be in a situation reminiscent of the US system today... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2008 : 09:49:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Gorgo:
Does anyone have any idea what this means? |
Yeah. Bidden has a son in Iraq right now.
|
Yer kidding, right? What does it mean to say, "God protect our troops?" From what? Was he not paying attention before Biden said that? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/15/2008 09:50:02 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debate #2
