Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-02-16 17:43:44
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6961|Canberra, AUS

Canin wrote:

Heh, I actually always voted for a persons stands and records, never a party. I get so pissed off at primary time because everyone whines about how the selected candidate isnt one of their choosing, but they didn't bother to vote in the primary to begin with.
yeah it's pretty hard to have a candidate of your choosing if you, well, didn't actually choose a candidate
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-02-16 17:44:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Canin wrote:

Heh, I actually always voted for a persons stands and records, never a party. I get so pissed off at primary time because everyone whines about how the selected candidate isnt one of their choosing, but they didn't bother to vote in the primary to begin with.
I can't vote in a damn primary because I don't belong to a party I get stuck with whoever the idiots in the parties decide tickles their pickle.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-16 17:44:20)

"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
2010-02-16 17:45:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
I'm independent myself, although my views mostly lean in the Canadian/European liberal persuasion, but with a few elements of libertarianism and conservatism for good measure.

That being said, with the way the GOP has been moving mostly rightward, I have little choice but to usually vote Democratic.
2010-02-16 17:45:58
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6815|Global Command
Well fuck, what were our choices as we looked on in disbelief at what was happening?

This disaster really kicked in during bushes last year. We saw it coming, but nobody thought it would get this bad this fast. I certainly don't blame obama for the financial mess but he is doing everything possible to sow more fear and debt, at least in many peoples eyes.

It is all part of a grand scheme.

It must be curtailed.
2010-02-16 17:45:59
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6761|Foothills of S. Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Canin wrote:

Heh, I actually always voted for a persons stands and records, never a party. I get so pissed off at primary time because everyone whines about how the selected candidate isnt one of their choosing, but they didn't bother to vote in the primary to begin with.
I can't vote in a damn primary because I don't belong to a party I get stuck with whoever the idiots in the parties decide tickles their pickle.
You could vote in the GOP primary in SC, its still an open primary system here.


That being said, I usually tend to vote in the GOP primaries because I can usually find someone closer to my core beliefs there than in the Dem party
2010-02-16 17:47:30
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

I'm independent myself, although my views mostly lean in the Canadian/European liberal persuasion, but with a few elements of libertarianism and conservatism for good measure.

That being said, with the way the GOP has been moving mostly rightward, I have little choice but to usually vote Democratic.
It's been moving back towards the center over the past year. They had no choice. The Dems have been moving further and further left though, and that is what spawned the Tea Parties. There are a lot of pissed off, newly fiscally aware, people out there right now. It's going to be the death knell for progressives for at least a generation (hopefully).

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-16 17:48:39)

"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
2010-02-16 17:50:46
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm independent myself, although my views mostly lean in the Canadian/European liberal persuasion, but with a few elements of libertarianism and conservatism for good measure.

That being said, with the way the GOP has been moving mostly rightward, I have little choice but to usually vote Democratic.
It's been moving back towards the center over the past year. They had no choice. The Dems have been moving further and further left though, and that is what spawned the Tea Parties. There are a lot of pissed off, newly fiscally aware, people out there right now. It's going to be the death knell for progressives for at least a generation (hopefully).
Uh no.  There is clearly a left wing side among Democrats, but the fact that they can't pass anything with a supermajority and the presidency shows that they are actually much more moderate than before.  The Blue Dogs are blocking almost as much as the Republicans are.

The Democratic Party in and of itself would be considered center-right in most First World political systems, including Canada and most of Western Europe.

They've become more moderate, and Republicans are becoming more conservative.
2010-02-16 17:52:34
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm independent myself, although my views mostly lean in the Canadian/European liberal persuasion, but with a few elements of libertarianism and conservatism for good measure.

That being said, with the way the GOP has been moving mostly rightward, I have little choice but to usually vote Democratic.
It's been moving back towards the center over the past year. They had no choice. The Dems have been moving further and further left though, and that is what spawned the Tea Parties. There are a lot of pissed off, newly fiscally aware, people out there right now. It's going to be the death knell for progressives for at least a generation (hopefully).
Uh no.  There is clearly a left wing side among Democrats, but the fact that they can't pass anything with a supermajority and the presidency shows that they are actually much more moderate than before.  The Blue Dogs are blocking almost as much as the Republicans are.

The Democratic Party in and of itself would be considered center-right in most First World political systems, including Canada and most of Western Europe.

They've become more moderate, and Republicans are becoming more conservative.
This is why labels fail. What do you mean moderate and conservative? Neither party is moving to the right (on the compass).
"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
2010-02-16 17:52:48
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
I dont see how you could say the republicans have become moderate over the year.  If anything theyre starting to cater to the teapartiers.  I dont see teapartiers as being anything other than to the right.
Tu Stultus Es
2010-02-16 17:53:06
Canin
Conservative Roman Catholic
+280|6761|Foothills of S. Carolina

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm independent myself, although my views mostly lean in the Canadian/European liberal persuasion, but with a few elements of libertarianism and conservatism for good measure.

That being said, with the way the GOP has been moving mostly rightward, I have little choice but to usually vote Democratic.
It's been moving back towards the center over the past year. They had no choice. The Dems have been moving further and further left though, and that is what spawned the Tea Parties. There are a lot of pissed off, newly fiscally aware, people out there right now. It's going to be the death knell for progressives for at least a generation (hopefully).
Uh no.  There is clearly a left wing side among Democrats, but the fact that they can't pass anything with a supermajority and the presidency shows that they are actually much more moderate than before.  The Blue Dogs are blocking almost as much as the Republicans are.

The Democratic Party in and of itself would be considered center-right in most First World political systems, including Canada and most of Western Europe.

They've become more moderate, and Republicans are becoming more conservative.
While there does appear to be a moderate lean to some of the left, they are not who get the air time. What most of the country sees is the ultra left progressives. They stick out like a sore thumb as much as the neocons do on the right.
2010-02-16 17:54:25
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5545|foggy bottom
Eric Cantor looks like such a slimeball
Tu Stultus Es
2010-02-16 17:55:21
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

eleven bravo wrote:

I dont see how you could say the republicans have become moderate over the year.  If anything theyre starting to cater to the teapartiers.  I dont see teapartiers as being anything other than to the right.
To the East on the political compass, absolutely. But much further South than the Republican Party itself. More economically conservative, more socially liberal. They've tried to keep the bible thumpers out because, frankly, they're sick of them.
"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
2010-02-16 17:57:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


It's been moving back towards the center over the past year. They had no choice. The Dems have been moving further and further left though, and that is what spawned the Tea Parties. There are a lot of pissed off, newly fiscally aware, people out there right now. It's going to be the death knell for progressives for at least a generation (hopefully).
Uh no.  There is clearly a left wing side among Democrats, but the fact that they can't pass anything with a supermajority and the presidency shows that they are actually much more moderate than before.  The Blue Dogs are blocking almost as much as the Republicans are.

The Democratic Party in and of itself would be considered center-right in most First World political systems, including Canada and most of Western Europe.

They've become more moderate, and Republicans are becoming more conservative.
This is why labels fail. What do you mean moderate and conservative? Neither party is moving to the right (on the compass).
Democrats watered down their own healthcare bill to become a cesspool of private insurance subsidization.  Blue Dogs loaded up on pork.

Blue Dogs also keep most social agendas in the Democratic Party rather moderate compared to the party back in the 70s and 80s.

As for Republicans, it's like eleven said.  The Tea Partiers are primarily far right wingers.  Some might not be as far to the right, but the majority of them are so conservative that they only make the GOP look moderate by comparison.  Naturally, the GOP is trying to get them back into the party, and the only way to do that is to become more conservative.
2010-02-16 18:09:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England
This is why labels fail.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=9.12&soc=-3.64

This is my political compass. To Republicans, I'm liberal, to Democrats, I'm conservative.

For some perspective:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/internationalchart.gif
https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/usprimaries_2008.png

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-02-16 18:11:41)

"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
2010-02-16 18:26:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

This is why labels fail.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faceboo … ;soc=-3.64

This is my political compass. To Republicans, I'm liberal, to Democrats, I'm conservative.

For some perspective:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ … lchart.gif
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/ … s_2008.png
A lot of Democrats are populist.  A lot of tea partiers are libertarian.

However, one thing I've always noticed about many self-described libertarians is that they don't really care much about social issues.  They usually just focus on economic policy and aim for the extreme right.

This is why I consider the tea partiers right wingers.  They aren't really for smaller government when it comes to social policy, but they want lower taxes and they fear the word "socialism."

As long as that's the case, it's just a matter of the GOP moving further rightward on economic issues without conceding much on social issues.

By the same token, a lot of the Democrats are already moderate on both social and economic issues, which is why it's becoming readily apparent that only a relatively small proportion of the population can really be considered "liberal."

Typically, people are only liberal when it benefits them.
2010-02-16 18:26:32
LividBovine
The Year of the Cow!
+175|6666|MN
On the Tea Partiers, they are a bunch of people fed up with the government for different reasons.  Some were against the healthcare bill, Cap and Trade, and various other programs.  There was no one underlying theme other than they thought the government was trying to do too much.  Yes there were probably racist in the crowd, along with a whole host of other fringe thinking people.  Just like in any large group.

On the where were you during Bush, I was asleep at the wheel.  I was not versed in politics at all.  I believed what my family and friends believed.  I did not inform myself on the issues and made blind judgments on them.  In hind sight, I would have been mad as hell at some of the things Bush I and II did.  As much if not more so than what Clinton or Obama have done.  Mainly because they were supposed to be standing for the things I thought I believed in.

In the constant bantering about socialism vs liberty, the idea of the Republic gets lost very quickly.  The idea that the fate of the country is being constantly handed to a more and more concentrated source of influence is scary to say the least.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
2010-02-16 21:19:55
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7002
“If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months.”  Evan Bayh

Ouch!
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/0 … d-no-jobs/
Love is the answer
2010-02-16 21:21:41
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US
I'm more of a moderate-libertarian.  Some of the Tea Party ideas really appeal to me, but I'm worried about the social stances it will take if the Tea Party ever gets organized like other parties.  Bringing in Sarah Palin was stupid, IMO.  They can find someone FAR less polarizing (...not even considering opinions of the lady herself...)
2010-02-17 03:01:08
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6576|Éire

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock, it's never been any different than it is today really. We in Western Society have a penchant for revering some ideal political past that never truly existed.
Not since ancient Greece has it been true democracy... but it has been getting progressively worse in the last century. Nowadays you have small numbers of broad parties that don't reflect the actual political complexity of the social landscape, who ride to power on the back of campaign funding solicited from lobby groups and private sector interest groups, and who (once elected) completely ignore the opinions and desires of the masses whenever it suits them.

Mass media, instead of making things better, is seemingly making things worse. Instead of being up in arms about the reality we're now confronted with we are more concerned about how big our arses look in the mirror and who will win America's next top model. Now and again we might rant on a forum or on our respective blogs and labour under the illusion that our opinions actually mean something*.

*Yes, I did watch Charlie Brooker's Newswipe this evening!
Democracy is hardly the ideal system you seem to think it is. You think you have no voice now? Democracy is pure Tyranny of the Majority. Mob rule. The only difference between a Totalitarian system and Democracy is that you get a million little Hitlers instead of one big one. I'll pass. I prefer my Republic.
The one good thing we have here is the Senate, where a recognised academic qualification is needed to vote in elections. Some regard this to be undemocratic but it's not, if you want an academic qualification get off your ass and get yourself one, no one is stopping you. If you can't get one, well... I guess you don't deserve a Senate vote. It's nowhere near perfect but it's the closest thing we have to a Timocracy.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard