It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Romney convention speech(303 posts)(303 posts)
(303 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
21
This is my favourite topic
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Tantrix: Your point being? I still believe that a single vote has more power than an entire government. If the Americans would wake up from the American Dream and face the American Reality...
The point being that there's both traditional and technical reasons for this as can be read in the article. With the American system a vote for a third party is indeed a wasted vote, it has symbolic value at best. A third party obviously can't compete with the two big ones, they can only achieve minor victories and those won't get them into congress or grant them benefits that will help them grow systematically the way you know it from Germany. So even as someone who thinks that both big parties suck ass you might rather want to vote for the lesser evil of the two instead of "wasting" your vote.
Post edited September 04, 2012 by F4LL0UT
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
F4LL0UT: SNIP
So even as someone who thinks that both big parties suck ass you might rather want to vote for the lesser evil of the two instead of "wasting" your vote.
Sorry, but I learned a long time ago that's plain bullshit. This kind of reasoning argumenting is just an excuse people use as manthra to pray. If you keep telling yourself that, it's no surprise the two-system is still present.
The Democrats are, by all means, corrupt and lying socialists who'd want to turn the US into a surveillance state and continue their anti-Israel policy until Israel is no more.
The Republicans are bought up Fordists who pretend to be great Christians just to present themselves as Marionette's of the oil lobbies and the military and probably fuck up in external policy. As always.
And both parties would increase the shithole of debtness. I really don't see any "lesser evil", they are both bad on an equal level.

I know, you are from Poland, but...god fucking hell, just vote for a different party for fucking fuck's sake. What happened to the word DEMOCRACY?!
My country is fucked up already, you can't vote any party here any longer (Weimar 2.0) which does the same policy. But you guys in America have better sense of freedom.

Gooby, pls.
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Tantrix: Sorry, but I learned a long time ago that's plain bullshit. This kind of reasoning argumenting is just an excuse people use as manthra to pray. If you keep telling yourself that, it's no surprise the two-system is still present.
It's not the reasoning that's bullshit, it's the system that is. Don't blame people for recognizing this and adapting to it. In Germany and Poland I'd of course consider supporting a smaller party (I have done this in Germany - yeah, I grew up there and have both citizenships) but in the US the system just doesn't work this way. You know, it's not called "two party system" for no reason. Believing that just voting for some third party that you believe in will end the two party system is like believing that you can get out of a dictatorship through voting for another party. It's delusional.
Post edited September 04, 2012 by F4LL0UT
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Tantrix: Sorry, but I learned a long time ago that's plain bullshit. This kind of reasoning argumenting is just an excuse people use as manthra to pray. If you keep telling yourself that, it's no surprise the two-system is still present.
avatar
F4LL0UT: It's not the reasoning that's bullshit, it's the system that is. Don't blame people for recognizing this and adapting to it. In Germany and Poland I'd of course consider supporting a smaller party (I have done this in Germany - yeah, I grew up there and have both citizenships) but in the US the system just doesn't work this way. You know, it's not called "two party system" for no reason. Believing that just voting for some third party that you believe in will end the two party system is like believing that you can get out of a dictatorship through voting for another party. It's delusional.
And I am telling you, systems can be changed, or else this is hell. Democracy needs to be fluid and always shifting, or else you have blood dried politicians who are glued on their chair.
Just for the sake of the argument, what happens if NO ONE votes the two big parties but only on certain parties. Do you think the system can hold itself if the people say otherwise?

I am not telling to do "REVOLUTION", but growing scepticism instead of acceptance. I know we will be heading to a dark age, but don't blame the system then. If you resign and "accept and adapt to it", it's your own damn fault.
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
F4LL0UT: SNIP
So even as someone who thinks that both big parties suck ass you might rather want to vote for the lesser evil of the two instead of "wasting" your vote.
There are systems in the world with one big corrupt party (most dictatorships) and so you can easily conceive a system with two corrupt parties (call them Tories and Labour if you don't like Democrats and Republicans). As a voter you can only chose the lesser evil and that means that both parties can just alternately reign over the country. A majority voting system is effectively a very good working plan to keep unwanted competition at distance.

Now the right answer would be that all people frustrated with current politicians should go and found their own party and fight for a new voting system. In germany for example more people do not vote at all than for any other party but there is no excuse to not found your own party or take part in a minor one and try to change it.
Post edited September 04, 2012 by Trilarion
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Trilarion: Now the right answer would be that all people frustrated with current politicians should go and found their own party and fight for a new voting system.
THIS
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Trilarion: Now the right answer would be that all people frustrated with current politicians should go and found their own party and fight for a new voting system.
Try getting a chance, legally, to run for office in the United States doing that. Nothing short of revolution would fix the loopholes in the laws that make this all but impossible.

When that fails, you can always just change the rules suddenly. Like how the republican party "suddenly" required 8 states to allow Ron Paul a shot at running for president. The previous requirement was 5.

Ron Paul had 6.
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
keeveek: I know quite a few christians that don't go to any church, they just try to follow what Jesus taught them. And these are good people.
avatar
orcishgamer: I tend to get along with these sorts a lot better as they tend to have a far smaller percentage of hypocrites (especially the hypocrites that do pretty nasty stuff).

I'd argue that a large percentage of US Christians would not be approved of by their Christ as they describe him. And I don't mean in the "we all have our shortcomings" kind of way, but more the "you're basically a self centered and evil motherfucker".

I know a lot of Mormons and I know a ton about their dogma, I still want to know why they can justify supporting Romney, the way he runs his business the Jesus they describe would have gone into a rage and beat his ass out of the "temple" just as fast as any money changer. This is not "my" Jesus, I don't have one of those, this is the Jesus that they describe to me. Mormons are extremely fond of that Biblical story, btw, so I think the question is very apt.

And to you Mormons, you tend to idolize your law of tithing, thinking anyone to actually pays must be good in all other ways. Yet you castigate Catholics for their practice of indulgences (pre-paying for sins) and how easy confession is. This is inconsistent, someone is not "good" just because they donate 10% of their income to their church. It might be a point in their favor, but it's not an excuse to overlook their other behavior. Your church's official policy is to not accept tithing paid on income from illegal or immoral actions. Are you 100% certain that Romney's actions at Bain don't qualify as immoral? I urge you to take a deeper look, because it is a pretty nasty way to operate.

I am in no way arguing for Obama here, what I am arguing, to Mormons specifically, about is that Romeny is probably not the guy you want representing your belief system to the world. The dude acts like a class A asshole, regardless of how tear jerking of a speech he can give at the church pulpit.
We try to be non-judgmental when we don't know the facts. I haven't heard anything terribly immoral about how Romney runs his business, could you please provide examples/sources/any kind of detail aside from your statements?

Paying tithing isn't about the money - it's about being willing to sacrifice for the good of others. As I understand them, indulgences are built to be for the good of the person paying them. A similar thing with confession - we believe that confessing a sin should be part of trying to change your life to avoid it. From what I know of Catholic theology, there isn't the same kind of emphasis on changing your life to avoid committing the sin again, ti's more of a check-the-box experience. Obviously most Catholics are devout people who try to live their lives as Jesus would want them to, but the different emphasis is striking.

The thing is that we tend to let someone's spiritual standing be between them, their bishop (in extreme cases), and the Lord. It's just not our business. Sometimes, yeah, that means we don't look as closely at things as we should. But the tendency to back-bite and witch-hunt is very, very strong and I think we mostly avoid that.

And, as surprising as this probably is, I'm not supporting Romney because he's LDS. I think he's our best bet for President because he takes civic duty seriously (didn't draw salary as governor for example) and can balance a budget. He actually pays attention to hard data, which we need more and get less in Washington than anywhere else.
avatar
Trilarion: Now the right answer would be that all people frustrated with current politicians should go and found their own party and fight for a new voting system.
avatar
Tantrix: THIS
Yeah, I'd back that.
Post edited September 04, 2012 by HGiles
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
Tantrix: THIS
avatar
HGiles: Yeah, I'd back that.
This has been tried multiple times, I've voted for these sorts for decades before giving up. The two existing parties have managed to make it nearly impossible to succeed. What's the last third party candidate for president to get into nationally televised debates? Ross Perot (because of his metric fuck ton of money)? Yeah... that.

The best thing for everyone who's disenfranchised to do is to STOP VOTING. I know this sounds counter intuitive, but you can't very well claim to be much of a democracy or have any kind of mandate if 90% of your population detests you. WE WILL NEVER GET CHANGE THROUGH THIRD PARTIES, IT HAS BEEN TRIED FOR DECADES. This is the only option left with a chance in hell of working.
Post edited September 04, 2012 by orcishgamer
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
HGiles: Yeah, I'd back that.
avatar
orcishgamer: This has been tried multiple times, I've voted for these sorts for decades before giving up. The two existing parties have managed to make it nearly impossible to succeed. What's the last third party candidate for president to get into nationally televised debates? Ross Perot (because of his metric fuck ton of money)? Yeah... that.

The best thing for everyone who's disenfranchised to do is to STOP VOTING. I know this sounds counter intuitive, but you can't very well claim to be much of a democracy or have any kind of mandate if 90% of your population detests you. WE WILL NEVER GET CHANGE THROUGH THIRD PARTIES, IT HAS BEEN TRIED FOR DECADES. This is the only option left with a chance in hell of working.
But if the majority take a step back, then the fringe *really* gets going. Not voting is definitely not the answer. Participation in politics has been declining for decades, and so now the moderate majority doesn't really have a representative in Congress. And we're ruled by crazies who think a kill switch for the Internet is a good idea.

To me it seems like the answer is in getting more involved - or involved in more effective ways. Just voting isn't nearly enough to actually make a difference, true. But emailing or calling a Congress critter is surprisingly effective, as is joining a local party organization and making strides towards your favored policies at a local level. The local party organization trickles ideas up the chain fairly effectively.
Posted September 04, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: This has been tried multiple times, I've voted for these sorts for decades before giving up. The two existing parties have managed to make it nearly impossible to succeed. What's the last third party candidate for president to get into nationally televised debates? Ross Perot (because of his metric fuck ton of money)? Yeah... that.

The best thing for everyone who's disenfranchised to do is to STOP VOTING. I know this sounds counter intuitive, but you can't very well claim to be much of a democracy or have any kind of mandate if 90% of your population detests you. WE WILL NEVER GET CHANGE THROUGH THIRD PARTIES, IT HAS BEEN TRIED FOR DECADES. This is the only option left with a chance in hell of working.
avatar
HGiles: But if the majority take a step back, then the fringe *really* gets going. Not voting is definitely not the answer. Participation in politics has been declining for decades, and so now the moderate majority doesn't really have a representative in Congress. And we're ruled by crazies who think a kill switch for the Internet is a good idea.

To me it seems like the answer is in getting more involved - or involved in more effective ways. Just voting isn't nearly enough to actually make a difference, true. But emailing or calling a Congress critter is surprisingly effective, as is joining a local party organization and making strides towards your favored policies at a local level. The local party organization trickles ideas up the chain fairly effectively.
For every example of activism making any difference whatsoever there's literally a 100 or more where lobbyists beat them. Money is political speech and on the grand scale you and I have none. Voter participation being in decline is the the symptom or result, not the cause, as people find out that their vote literally doesn't matter AND they won't even get to pick who/what to vote on they necessarily get disenfranchised. No grass roots effort is going to beat super PACs, I'm sorry, I wish they actually could, but it just doesn't add up. Furthermore if you have to spend that much time fighting "evil" in addition to barely making ends meet (a sad fact of life for far too many Americans when overall we have so much wealth) then our democracy is effectively broken. There is literally no harm in tossing it in the bin at this point. Our parents failed us, we have failed, and soon we will have failed our children. It's better to own up to that fact.

How much farther would the enormous input of effort you're proposing for grass roots go towards creating something not so fundamentally broken and abused? How often does it make sense to fix a car with a repair bill far in excess of its value?
Posted September 06, 2012
Watched Clinton's speech at the DNC and by comparison Romney's speech was a joke. The language and points made are so much more sophisticated and compelling. Clinton hit all the right buttons. If Obama can top that, Republicans can pack their bags and go home.
Posted September 06, 2012
avatar
scampywiak: Watched Clinton's speech at the DNC and by comparison Romney's speech was a joke. The language and points made are so much more sophisticated and compelling. Clinton hit all the right buttons. If Obama can top that, Republicans can pack their bags and go home.
Clinton is known for his charisma (it's clearly an 18, and extra points in the seduction feat) and Romey is not (8 Cha tops for that guy).

It would have been sad if Clinton couldn't run circles around Romney in the speech arena.
Posted September 06, 2012
avatar
scampywiak: Watched Clinton's speech at the DNC and by comparison Romney's speech was a joke. The language and points made are so much more sophisticated and compelling. Clinton hit all the right buttons. If Obama can top that, Republicans can pack their bags and go home.
avatar
orcishgamer: Clinton is known for his charisma (it's clearly an 18, and extra points in the seduction feat) and Romey is not (8 Cha tops for that guy).

It would have been sad if Clinton couldn't run circles around Romney in the speech arena.
sometimes I miss the Clinton days :(
Posted September 06, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Clinton is known for his charisma (it's clearly an 18, and extra points in the seduction feat) and Romey is not (8 Cha tops for that guy).

It would have been sad if Clinton couldn't run circles around Romney in the speech arena.
avatar
Elmofongo: sometimes I miss the Clinton days :(
Whether you agreed with the dude or not, he was barrels of monkey based entertainment:)
Pages:
1
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
21
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Romney convention speech(303 posts)(303 posts)
(303 posts)