so you're voting for a democrat hoping that the republicans change? wtf kind of logic is that? I vote. Never voted for a dem or repub candidate for pres....because i've never agreed with their platform. You don't have to vote for a dem or repub....AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.Jay wrote:
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
The Democrats haven't even proposed a budget since they took control in 2006. They aren't the answer you seek. Clinton was an outlier. Dem policies closely mimic the garbage you see being passed in single party California.13urnzz wrote:
well, it's your lucky day! i am not advocating pie in the sky and i don't vote a straight ticket. i want a federal budget passed and i blame congress, both democrats and republicans for not getting it done.Jay wrote:
Burnz, the only people I ever hear talking about bipartisanship are democrats crying about not being able to pass their pie in the sky visions.i disagree with you. it's ok though, you're young enough to think you know everything, and old enough to think you've seen everything.Jay wrote:
You are advocating a vision of a time that never existed, sorry. The country has been hyperpartisan since its founding.
before gingrich engineered this latest round of hyper-partisanship, name the fiscal year that a federal budget wasn't passed. oh wait, gingrich and clinton did pass a bi-partisan budget, after the government closures forced both of them back to the table. not only passed a budget, but a democratic president signed a balanced budget!
so, name the fiscal year that a federal budget wasn't passed, before the teabaggers were elected in 2010 please.
Bipartisan is a codeword for single party rule. I'd rather have them at each others throats so we don't get another obamacare or billions of dollars wasted on trains no one will ride and energy policies that do nothing but jack up rates and make speculators rich.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
See this logic works in Australia. Given that everyone in Australia votes, if a party is not getting support they have to determine ways where they can appeal to the greatest number of voters again. This generally means a shift to the centre. If a political party in America is failing to get support they have to determine ways to appeal to their voter base to make sure they actually vote for them. This generally means a shift to whichever side of politics they bat for.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you're voting for a democrat hoping that the republicans change? wtf kind of logic is that? I vote. Never voted for a dem or repub candidate for pres....because i've never agreed with their platform. You don't have to vote for a dem or repub....AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.Jay wrote:
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Then what exactly do you think is fiscal conservatism? You said it's what you would want in a party.AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.Jay wrote:
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.AussieReaper wrote:
Yep.
Gotta cancel out the crazy vote.
Should the GOP lose, they either move toward the centre, or further right. Which do you think they'll do?
They used to be a credible party. Embracing the tea party "Obama is a Muslim" extreme is utterly pathetic. As is the birther movement.
Gimme a GOP that cares about fiscal conservatism, hold the nuts, thanks.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
appealing to factions as a 'voting base' is stupid in my opinion. It's akin to focusing on swing states in the US. Rationality and ability to lead should be the core focus. I think politicians appealing to voting bases is a key fucked up component in politics. And it's not just politicians' fault, they just exploit the shit out of it
everyone in australia votes?Ty wrote:
See this logic works in Australia. Given that everyone in Australia votes, if a party is not getting support they have to determine ways where they can appeal to the greatest number of voters again. This generally means a shift to the centre. If a political party in America is failing to get support they have to determine ways to appeal to their voter base to make sure they actually vote for them. This generally means a shift to whichever side of politics they bat for.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
so you're voting for a democrat hoping that the republicans change? wtf kind of logic is that? I vote. Never voted for a dem or repub candidate for pres....because i've never agreed with their platform. You don't have to vote for a dem or repub....AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.
lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.
from that same article, 63% of eligible voters in the US voted. so the difference is 18%.wiki wrote:
However, Australia's voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters is only 81%. [4] Around 10% of eligible Australian voters are not registered to vote. Also, the 81% includes high proportions of donkey votes & invalid votes.
Everyone in Australia has to be registered to vote but can of course choose to abstain. Generally though the system has worked to ensure a higher voter turn-out but like the article mentioned donkey votes are common.
Surprised by the 63%, I always thought voter turn-out in the US was a bit of an issue.
Surprised by the 63%, I always thought voter turn-out in the US was a bit of an issue.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Australia's effective turnout (ie. the proportion of the population that casts a vote) is usually >95%, though donkey votes will obvs reduce that number somewhat. Still should be in the 90% region. If it drops below that, that's a sign that the politics is unusually shit at the time.
But yeah AR's logic is pretty much exactly how the Aus system works. That it's parliamentary Westminster with a preferential electoral system helps too, ofc.
But yeah AR's logic is pretty much exactly how the Aus system works. That it's parliamentary Westminster with a preferential electoral system helps too, ofc.
Last edited by Spark (2012-10-17 21:58:11)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
They probably wouldn't have to appeal to the core base as much if more people voted. But you said that me voting for a lesser evil is stupid, so which is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
appealing to factions as a 'voting base' is stupid in my opinion. It's akin to focusing on swing states in the US. Rationality and ability to lead should be the core focus. I think politicians appealing to voting bases is a key fucked up component in politics. And it's not just politicians' fault, they just exploit the shit out of it
@jay, Clinton was a fiscal conservative who actually had bipartisan support. Bush in contrast put two wars on the books that we're totally unfunded.
Obama hasnt done much to improve it, the stimulus spending was too little (we can argue Keynesian economics another time).
What are the GOP offering that is fiscally conservative? A voucher for Medicare?
Last edited by AussieReaper (2012-10-17 22:25:22)
Being fiscally conservative is running a surplus. Taking in more than you spend. Having modest debt. Saving for a rainy day. Having a small government isn't a necessary conditon.Jay wrote:
Then what exactly do you think is fiscal conservatism? You said it's what you would want in a party.AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.Jay wrote:
Sounds like the Libertarian Party.
Unless you're libertarian...
Do you not understand that you don't have to vote democrat or republican? You can vote for another party. If neither are appealing why settle if you're going to make a protest vote?AussieReaper wrote:
They probably wouldn't have to appeal to the core base as much if more people voted. But you said that me voting for a lesser evil is stupid, so which is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
appealing to factions as a 'voting base' is stupid in my opinion. It's akin to focusing on swing states in the US. Rationality and ability to lead should be the core focus. I think politicians appealing to voting bases is a key fucked up component in politics. And it's not just politicians' fault, they just exploit the shit out of it
Because it makes a point?
Would be great if it wasn't a two party system...KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Do you not understand that you don't have to vote democrat or republican? You can vote for another party. If neither are appealing why settle if you're going to make a protest vote?AussieReaper wrote:
They probably wouldn't have to appeal to the core base as much if more people voted. But you said that me voting for a lesser evil is stupid, so which is it?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
appealing to factions as a 'voting base' is stupid in my opinion. It's akin to focusing on swing states in the US. Rationality and ability to lead should be the core focus. I think politicians appealing to voting bases is a key fucked up component in politics. And it's not just politicians' fault, they just exploit the shit out of it
And when the focus groups and electoral bodies see support for one over the other, it'd be great if the response was to shift towards a more centrist position. Like how it happens in most other systems.
Third time: you can still cast a vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican. If you are fed up with both parties you don't have to vote for them. You can vote for another person/party to make a point that you aren't ok with the status quo. What exactly is a centrist position? The US has been alternating dems and repubs in elections for years. Tell me how that's significantly different than your magical 'you force them to be more centrist' argument that's vague as hell.
That's not exactly the same as voting for a third party here - that's effectively a no-vote with a little feel-good attached, frankly.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I never said it was. In fact I'm not the one trying to draw parellels to your system. You guys are.Spark wrote:
That's not exactly the same as voting for a third party here - that's effectively a no-vote with a little feel-good attached, frankly.
That doesn't really fit with the one-eyedness of Libertarianism.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Being fiscally conservative is running a surplus. Taking in more than you spend. Having modest debt. Saving for a rainy day. Having a small government isn't a necessary conditon.
Fuck Israel
Do you think that if you vote for either end of the spectrum, as you do not like the direction of the other, that the party is more likely to move closer to the other?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Third time: you can still cast a vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican. If you are fed up with both parties you don't have to vote for them. You can vote for another person/party to make a point that you aren't ok with the status quo. What exactly is a centrist position? The US has been alternating dems and repubs in elections for years. Tell me how that's significantly different than your magical 'you force them to be more centrist' argument that's vague as hell.
Of course they will. They are trying to win votes.
Voting for a 3rd party isn't going to help in that process of aligning the parties closer to your desired, because the US is for all intents and purposes a 2 party system.
So your view of fiscal conservatives is that they're there to ride to the rescue when little Sally maxes out her credit card because of stupid purchases? They shouldn't have any say in how that money was spent, merely find a way to pay for it? Sorry, that's not how it works.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Being fiscally conservative is running a surplus. Taking in more than you spend. Having modest debt. Saving for a rainy day. Having a small government isn't a necessary conditon.Jay wrote:
Then what exactly do you think is fiscal conservatism? You said it's what you would want in a party.AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.
lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.
Fiscal conservatism at its heart is about freedom for business and expansion of wealth. They want low taxes not necessarily because they're greedy people, but because low taxes make the businesses that live in that environment more competitive. If you have a higher tax rate than your competitors you will bleed jobs to those low tax nations. It's why Ireland saw such a boom before the housing crash. It's why every high tax environment in Europe has experienced much lower growth rates than we have over the past four decades.
You can't have a low tax environment unless your government is small. It also means getting rid of things like farm subsidies, vocational licensure (Did you know that you need to spend $30,000 getting a license in California to recruit and transport workers to farm fields? The fine for violating this is up to $10,000 for the first violation), all the little regulations liberals like to insert at every opportunity, decreasing military spending, and getting rid of government departments that are redundant (i.e. the Department of Education when every single state and every local school board already performs the function).
Fiscal conservatism is about having a smaller, less intrusive government that doesn't fuck with markets constantly or threaten massive takeovers of a huge industry. It's about forcing people to pay their debts and respect property rights instead of encouraging them to occupy public parks and demand the forgiveness of their debt.
This is not to say that you can't have your societal safety net, but it means that it will be scrutinized more and the scope will be much smaller. It basically means that all dreams of having the word 'free' attached to anything goes out the window.
p.s. - Bush was a Democrat that liked war. That's all NeoCons are.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Umm, why do you think we ended up with Obama-clone Romney?AussieReaper wrote:
Do you think that if you vote for either end of the spectrum, as you do not like the direction of the other, that the party is more likely to move closer to the other?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Third time: you can still cast a vote for someone that isn't a democrat or republican. If you are fed up with both parties you don't have to vote for them. You can vote for another person/party to make a point that you aren't ok with the status quo. What exactly is a centrist position? The US has been alternating dems and repubs in elections for years. Tell me how that's significantly different than your magical 'you force them to be more centrist' argument that's vague as hell.
Of course they will. They are trying to win votes.
Voting for a 3rd party isn't going to help in that process of aligning the parties closer to your desired, because the US is for all intents and purposes a 2 party system.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
That's happened 4 times in 42 years. 5 times in 50. (3 under clinton)KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Being fiscally conservative is running a surplus. Taking in more than you spend. Having modest debt. Saving for a rainy day. Having a small government isn't a necessary conditon.Jay wrote:
Then what exactly do you think is fiscal conservatism? You said it's what you would want in a party.AussieReaper wrote:
The lesser of two evils in the hope that the most evil reforms. You need a strong opposition in government, and a strong opposition is better for democracy as a whole. I don't believe the Republicans offer that opposition, when they fight to be more socially conservative. Or daresay, regressive.
Not voting is a copout.
lol no. I understand that the government offers safety nets to people, the libertarian concept of an ever smaller government is backwards for many reasons.
Clinton's surpluses were bullshit though. They counted money borrowed out of the Social Security trust fund as revenue.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
fuck sake aussies go to your little bugaloo gay thread and sod off
What are you looking at dicknose
where did I mention anything about rescuing little Sally when she maxes out her credit cards? WTF are you talking about? All the other things you mentioned have nothing to do with the core of what being fiscally conservative is, which is making sure you don't spend more than you take in and having modest debt.Jay wrote:
So your view of fiscal conservatives is that they're there to ride to the rescue when little Sally maxes out her credit card because of stupid purchases? They shouldn't have any say in how that money was spent, merely find a way to pay for it? Sorry, that's not how it works.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Being fiscally conservative is running a surplus. Taking in more than you spend. Having modest debt. Saving for a rainy day. Having a small government isn't a necessary conditon.Jay wrote:
Then what exactly do you think is fiscal conservatism? You said it's what you would want in a party.