Getting political

Pages

AuthorTopic: Getting political
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #75
Maybe if we had a greatly reduced military we wouldn't feel so bad about having it sitting around? I can only posit that that is behind our recent military ventures.

—Alorael, who would hate to leave G. I. Joe sitting around somewhere where he can't kill foreigners. That's bad for morale!
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #76
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

Mexico is already attacking us in a stretching the truth sort of way. Their president encourages people to come to the U.S. and send back money to the government. He also says that anywhere Mexicans are is Mexico.
By that rationale, the US has been attacking most of the rest of the world for decades.

[ Tuesday, February 12, 2008 04:33: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #77
It's been attacking the rest of the world fairly frequently by any rationale. :P
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6754
Profile #78
I'm registered with the Democratic Party, and I'm very, very liberal.

I will always vote for the furthest to the left, as American policy has always been too far to the right for me. In this case it's Clinton. I don't think Obama would push hard enough in his term were he elected, and I plain hate the remaining Republican candidates (it's a shame about Guiliani, but no one would have voted for him anyway).

I think American politics is eligible for the linear spectrum; it's just a big pendulum that swings left and right, every decade or so, and the times you have a chance to make a difference is when the political pendulum has swung past you. The more liberal the candidate, the further left Washington goes, and the better chance of passing liberal legislation. Hillary Clinton will pull the country left with more force than anyone else behind the podium, and -- this part is a big assumption, granted -- she's radical enough to actually CHANGE SOMETHING IN OFFICE.

Finally, and sadly, the issues matter least of all. Most of eligible Americans don't vote. The vast majority of those who do are most influenced by their families and word of mouth - next, by who they like. And all anyone cares about this election seems to be BRO or HO. I'll bet 5% of voting Americans can't tell you dip about what any of the candidates have to say about Medicare, but they already know who they're voting for. People pick who they like to look at and gossip about.

So few educated, carefully considered decisions are actually made behind the curtain that I'm just about to piss myself in fear. Everyone, write Congress about passing legislation that requires voters have more than a pulse.

--------------------
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Posts: 284 | Registered: Tuesday, January 31 2006 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #79
quote:
Originally written by Nick Ringer:

So few educated, carefully considered decisions are actually made behind the curtain that I'm just about to piss myself in fear. Everyone, write Congress about passing legislation that requires voters have more than a pulse.
Hmm - how about no? And who would determine the criteria for the right to vote, anyway?
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #80
quote:
I doubt Bush's endorsement means much to most of the American populace.
To the contrary, I would say that being endorsed by Bush is about the worst thing that could happen to any candidate, other than possibly Huckabee because his supporters should match Bush's to a good degree.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 3040
Profile #81
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

quote:
Originally written by Nick Ringer:

So few educated, carefully considered decisions are actually made behind the curtain that I'm just about to piss myself in fear. Everyone, write Congress about passing legislation that requires voters have more than a pulse.
Hmm - how about no? And who would determine the criteria for the right to vote, anyway?

I read that post as "require (current) voters to get more than a pulse", loosely phrased, i.e. make voting mandatory and thus require them to read up on issues.

--------------------
5.0.1.0.0.0.0.1.0...
Posts: 508 | Registered: Thursday, May 29 2003 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #82
Context says that he would require people to meet some sort of threshold for being informed before they could vote. There's enough controversy as it things stand regarding elected officials redrawing congressional districts; we don't need partisan politicians defining who a qualified voter is.

If someone is scared of what the electorate is thinking/not thinking about when they vote, that person is completely free to try influencing them himself. The solution is more dialog, not a smaller, "more qualified" voter population.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #83
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

quote:
I doubt Bush's endorsement means much to most of the American populace.
To the contrary, I would say that being endorsed by Bush is about the worst thing that could happen to any candidate, other than possibly Huckabee because his supporters should match Bush's to a good degree.

Well, the folks that respect Bush (20+%) will vote for that candidate. Since only 55% of the population vote, I'm going to guess that a higher proportion of the Bush supporters are actual voters, so it would seem obvious that the endorsement would mean quite a bit. On the other hand, I think Aran should be a little more transparent about how he feels regarding the President. He is occasionally a little obtuse.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #84
McCain is going to win the nomination and Bush knows this. Bush does not like McCain and the two of them disagree on many issues. Bush is, however, obligated to endorse McCain for political reasons, such as to create an illusion of union among the Republican party. That 20% of people who actually support Bush must truly believe in the things Bush stands for since they are clearly not supporting him because of his popularity. Such people are hardcore conservatives who will see beyond a politically motivated endorsement and support Huckabee regardless. You might all be quite surprised to discover how little either campaigning or the media influences voter decisions in the end. In summation: the Republicans are screwed.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #85
I just learned that the last caucus is June 3rd. I wonder what things will be like by then.

--------------------
Decca Records - "We don't like their sound. Groups of guitars are on the way out."
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #86
Why are people assuming Huckabee is closer to Bush than McCain is?

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #87
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

I just learned that the last caucus is June 3rd. I wonder what things will be like by then.
Days will be longer, average temperatures higher, and skirts shorter.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..."
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #88
quote:
Why are people assuming Huckabee is closer to Bush than McCain is?
Bush has always seemed like a hard-right religious conservative. Is Bush so much less conservative than Huckabee as to put him closer to McCain?
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #89
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

McCain is going to win the nomination and Bush knows this. Bush does not like McCain and the two of them disagree on many issues. Bush is, however, obligated to endorse McCain for political reasons, such as to create an illusion of union among the Republican party. That 20% of people who actually support Bush must truly believe in the things Bush stands for since they are clearly not supporting him because of his popularity. Such people are hardcore conservatives who will see beyond a politically motivated endorsement and support Huckabee regardless. You might all be quite surprised to discover how little either campaigning or the media influences voter decisions in the end. In summation: the Republicans are screwed.
Not necessarily, if both Hillary and Obama run in the general election, despite one of them not recieving the nomination, then the split vote will probably allow McCain to win.

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #90
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

Bush has always seemed like a hard-right religious conservative. Is Bush so much less conservative than Huckabee as to put him closer to McCain?
Bush has been more of an opportunist than a religious conservative. I think the goals of his administration have always been more economically driven; the religious stuff was mostly lip service to the constituency keeping him in power.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #91
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

Not necessarily, if both Hillary and Obama run in the general election, despite one of them not recieving the nomination, then the split vote will probably allow McCain to win.
Are you saying if one wins the other might run as an independent? Sorry, but I can assure you that will most definitely not happen. No one has made that mistake since Taft and Roosevelt. Parties are smarter than that now, they encourage unity behind whoever the candidate is because they want to win.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #92
Parties encourage unity but it seldom happens. Ford vs. Reagan let Carter win, Carter vs. Edward Kennedy got us Reagan. The loser's supporters usually stay home in spite.

This year will probably see a drop in long time voters and a surge in new voters deciding the election.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #93
I think most of Hillary's supporters will be willing to back Obama, should it come to that, and I think at her core Hillary still supports her ideals and would be able to see that their interest would be best served by party-wide support for Obama, so she would back down.

[ Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:16: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Randomizer:

Parties encourage unity but it seldom happens. Ford vs. Reagan let Carter win, Carter vs. Edward Kennedy got us Reagan. The loser's supporters usually stay home in spite.
That's not really how it works. The fact that Ford sucked was why Carter won. The fact that Carter sucked was why Reagan won. The democratic nominee will win because Bush sucked. It's called the political pendulum. People get fed up and turn away from the incumbent party after a while. It's been that way for a long time.

And parties do encourage unity, all the time. To go up against the nominee of your party would be a stupid move. You don't really think Obama is foolish enough to believe he would stand a chance going up against Hillary if she becomes the nominee, do you? It would only screw over the party and make people hate him, and he knows this, it's kind of his job to know these things. That's also why Edwards gave up and endorsed Kerry in 2004, and thats why Bush endorsed McCain just recently.

I'm the Emperor. I know these things.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #95
I took a college course from the Political Science department on the parties back in 1981 when they had the exit polling data. Based on party registration nationwide and within the key states, the Democrats had over 60% of the voters. The swing in actual voting was because of the higher Republican turn out to vote for Nixon wasn't there for Carter over Ford in 1976 that returned in 1980.

If you look at long term trends, the Republicans held the presidency from 1860 to 1932 with the Wilson years as an aberration when Teddy Roosevelt split the Republican vote with Taft. Then the Democrats took over until LBJ left in 1968. Eisenhower was an apolitical who could have run as a Democrat and still won as the WW II war hero. The Republicans have regained control because Civil Rights and law and order caused Southern Democrats to vote for Republican presidents. Carter and Clinton are the only Democrats to regain the South and both were Southern governors.

The population shift after the 1980 census has weaken the old Democratic strongholds of the industrialized North and South that used to be required to win elections.

True Carter was losing the public relations battle over the Iranian hostage situation, but if the Kennedy supporters hadn't dumped him he could have won.

Pendulum swings against the incumbent party are a recent phenomena. It tends to be more a solid block of supporters defecting from their party. The Dixiecrats in the South going for Wallace to leave liberal Humprey (LBJ's vice president) high and dry to elect the law and order Nixon. Republican conservatives going home so Ford lost.

George W. Bush almost lost Florida in 2000 after having a major lead because retired Jewish Democratic voters decided to turn out when Jewish Lieberman was suddenly on the ballot. The state had swung Republican only recently to elect a Republican governor and was considered a lost cause for Democrats.

This year it looks like the surge in newly registered Latino voters will give the Democrats a push. Also Clinton has been winning in states because women are starting to vote in record numbers.

[ Wednesday, February 13, 2008 15:02: Message edited by: Randomizer ]
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
Profile Homepage #96
quote:
Originally written by Arancaytar:

quote:
Why are people assuming Huckabee is closer to Bush than McCain is?
Bush has always seemed like a hard-right religious conservative. Is Bush so much less conservative than Huckabee as to put him closer to McCain?

Bush's defining issue is Iraq and terrorism, and McCain loves to talk about those things a hell of a lot more than Huckabee. And as Drew said, Bush's religious rhetoric comes across more as pandering than genuine.

--------------------
SupaNik: Aran, you're not big enough to threaten Ash. Dammit, even JV had to think twice.
Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #97
I think it also matters what the candidates do. Bitterly opposed candidates are less likely to have supporters who will back the other candidate. Obama and Hillary have both made big displays of their (apparent) friendship and mutual support, so it doesn't seem a stretch for voters to prefer one, but support either.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 6754
Profile #98
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

And who would determine the criteria for the right to vote, anyway?
Me.

... educating and informing the American voting body is ideal, but not practical. Otherwise I might be motivated to actually do something about it. Although passing mandatory voting legislation might not be a bad idea, I think it violates the general spirit of constitutional freedom.

I remember once being posed this question rhetorically: "Is there such a thing as a worthless vote?" I fell for it at first, but I've recently decided that some peoples' opinions ARE more important than others'. That's why we have politicians, after all. Not that they're the most accurate selections, but society has deemed their opinions more valuable than the citizen's. Not only by office, but by education, does value of opinion differ. However, there is not and never will there be fair means for judgment thereof.

Consider current voting requirements in the United States: to vote, you have to be eighteen years old and a permanent citizen (I believe you must have at least six months continuous residence). This is pretty close to "fair" as the world goes, you've got to hand it to them. You don't have to be white, male, or rich to submit your political opinion. On the other hand, do you become more qualified to make that decision on your eighteenth birthday? Should an international businessman from Singapore have no say? If you're convicted of a felony, does your opinion suddenly become meaningless? Fallacies abound, but of course they are to be expected. I mean, what alternative is there?

For instance, suppose legislation were passed requiring a college diploma to vote. Just a bachelor's degree. To me, that sounds like a good idea - the ratio of completely moronic voters would probably drop. But does that include private schools? A two-year or a four-year program? What if a smart person can't afford college? What if a dumb person scrapes through Podunk Community College?

Corruption of media aside, I think forced involvement / information would trouble the voter, but cause better consideration. And a more educated decision means a better one. Choosing the President is a damned important decision, too. After all, as long as the U.S. is able to send troops to other countries, or hold a trade embargo, the outcome of these elections have a significant impact on the entire world. So who's to decide?

It would seem it's us. Justified or not, I am one of the people with the power to make that decision. The people posting here, I guess, are mostly Americans. Eligible voters.

I don't encourage you to vote one way or another - sure, I have my opinion, and it is radical - but I beg you, please, carefully and rationally consider your vote, and make it.

--------------------
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Posts: 284 | Registered: Tuesday, January 31 2006 08:00
Nuke and Pave
Member # 24
Profile Homepage #99
quote:
Originally written by Nick Ringer:

...
Consider current voting requirements in the United States: to vote, you have to be eighteen years old and a permanent citizen (I believe you must have at least six months continuous residence).

Almost right. You have to be a citizen, rather than just a resident.

quote:
This is pretty close to "fair" as the world goes, you've got to hand it to them. You don't have to be white, male, or rich to submit your political opinion. On the other hand, do you become more qualified to make that decision on your eighteenth birthday?
The line has to be drawn somewhere, unless you want 5 year olds to vote, and 18 sounds reasonable.

quote:
Should an international businessman from Singapore have no say?
If he lives in another country, he should have no more say in American politics than I have in politics of his country. (Unless he is a tax-paying citizen, who is temporarily leaving abroad.)

quote:
If you're convicted of a felony, does your opinion suddenly become meaningless?
No, but removal of voting rights for particularly bad crimes is just part of the punishment.

quote:
For instance, suppose legislation were passed requiring a college diploma to vote. Just a bachelor's degree.
...
There are plenty of people with college degrees whose common sence is severely lacking. :P And common sence is more important than university education in preventing elections from turning into a popularity contest.

--------------------
Be careful with a word, as you would with a sword,
For it too has the power to kill.
However well placed word, unlike a well placed sword,
Can also have the power to heal.
Posts: 2649 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages