What will scare the heck out of McCain

Pages

AuthorTopic: What will scare the heck out of McCain
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #0
Article
My dad's actually one of the delegates. When the director of the convention saw that Ron Paul was winning by a landslide, the director walked out. And as the Reno Gazette Journal said today, their contract to use the Peppermill Casino as their meeting hall had expired, during the middle of the convention! The same thing also happened in Louisiana, and of course, the convention there was canceled as well.

--------------------
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
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #1
Nothing like a good scheduling mix-up like that to prove they're only human. :D
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

My dad's actually one of the delegates.
Interesting job, to say the least.

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #2
Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation.

--------------------
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 # 4153
Profile Homepage #3
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation.
Balderdash. Pork for everyone!

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #4
quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

they're only human. :D
Only? They're politicians. For some of them, "human" is high praise. :P

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #5
Good point. I've never met a politician I didn't dislike.

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #6
quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

Good point. I've never met a politician I didn't dislike.
Not even yourself? We all exert political influence; some just do it in a larger sphere.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #7
I wouldn't say that's true. Plenty of people go through life without ever voting or even having a political opinion. The United States suffers chronically from people like this.

[ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:08: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ]

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #8
That's political influence, in its own way. If they didn't matter at all, the US couldn't suffer by it.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb ReloadedEpisode 5: Spiderweb Resistance
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #9
Or it's not political influence and the government suffers from the lack of participation. All depends on whether you use logic or just twist words, I won't say who's doing which. I'd would say I'm a politician, but I'm not sure whether that would help or hurt my case.

[ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 10:26: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ]

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 7488
Profile #10
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by The Mystic:

Good point. I've never met a politician I didn't dislike.
Not even yourself? We all exert political influence; some just do it in a larger sphere.

I'm talking about those who take an active role in politics, especially those who make a career of it.
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Plenty of people go through life without ever voting or even having a political opinion. The United States suffers chronically from people like this.
Tell me about it. Political apathy seems to run ramapnt here. If I remember correctly, I once read an article about an election where the voter turnout was 10% or less. Highly ironic, if you ask me. At least I vote regularly, so my voice is heard.

--------------------
Either I'm crazy, or everybody else is nuts. And I know I'm not crazy because the little man who lives on my shoulder told me so.
If people don't think there's something wrong with you, there's something wrong with you.
Oh well. Another day, another dementia.
Posts: 558 | Registered: Friday, September 15 2006 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #11
It's not so much apathy as a feeling that there isn't a real choice, and if there was, you're vote wouldn't matter...

We care, it's just we also realize that the people with power know how to manipulate the masses to effectively silence our voices...

EDIT:
I suspect this will become even more visible once the democratic nominee is chosen. The supporters of the other candidate will feel cheated, and may not vote in November as a result...

[ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 13:32: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
真実長ガス
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #12
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

I wouldn't say that's true. Plenty of people go through life without ever voting or even having a political opinion. The United States suffers chronically from people like this.
You've really never tried to convince your friends to do something you want them to do, like go out to see a movie together? That's politics; the only difference between that and what the president does is the scale.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #13
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

You've really never tried to convince your friends to do something you want them to do, like go out to see a movie together? That's politics; the only difference between that and what the president does is the scale.
And how hard did you have to look to find a definition of the word politics without the word 'government' in it? Or would you consider a group of friends a kind of government as well, Mr. Broad-Definitions?

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Lack of Vision
Member # 2717
Profile #14
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

It's not so much apathy as a feeling that there isn't a real choice, and if there was, you're vote wouldn't matter...


I seriously doubt I would have seen friends die on the other side of the planet had Gore been president. To me that's a pretty real choice.

And frak you to all Nader voters.

[ Tuesday, May 06, 2008 19:17: Message edited by: Masked Man of Inscrutability ]

--------------------
Pan Lever: Seventeen apple roving mirror moiety. Of turned quorum jaggedly the. Blue?
Posts: 186 | Registered: Thursday, February 27 2003 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #15
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

And how hard did you have to look to find a definition of the word politics without the word 'government' in it? Or would you consider a group of friends a kind of government as well, Mr. Broad-Definitions?
What, are you now saying that office politics only counts as politics if you work for the government?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #16
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

I suspect this will become even more visible once the democratic nominee is chosen. The supporters of the other candidate will feel cheated, and may not vote in November as a result...
I'm not sure that another democratic nominee will be chosen. A Democratic one, yes. A democratic one, maybe.

quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

And how hard did you have to look to find a definition of the word politics without the word 'government' in it? Or would you consider a group of friends a kind of government as well, Mr. Broad-Definitions?
It's actually not uncommon to see definitions of political systems that are intentionally so broad that they apply to families, corporations, etc. Check the intro to the Wikipedia article on "Politics" to see how standard this is.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 15001
Profile #17
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation.
All large democratic systems have political parties, because people naturally organize themselves to work towards a common goal -- even if that goal is fairly ambiguous as in the case of our very large parties in the U.S. Each party needs to choose a candidate, therefore, there will be a primary system. If we didn't have the parties, we could have dozens or hundreds of candidates for president, each with a tiny constituency. No candidate could receive enough votes to confer legitimacy. But that would never happen anyway unless we banned parties, which of course would be a bad idea.

I would change the system, though. The current primary system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. People in every state should vote on the same day, or days, in April or May. You count the votes and there's your nominee.

quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

I wouldn't say that's true. Plenty of people go through life without ever voting or even having a political opinion. The United States suffers chronically from people like this.
A lot of people don't vote, but the problem with many people's opinions is actually worse than you describe. They have opinions about things that are political, but do not relate those opinions to the political system or to the government. They don't realize that there is a larger public sphere in which issues are debated and policy solutions reached or at least suggested. They just have these free-floating opinions about health care, jobs, whatever, but are politically invisible because they don't understand how one becomes involved in the system, or even that there is a system you can be involved in.

quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

It's not so much apathy as a feeling that there isn't a real choice, and if there was, you're vote wouldn't matter...
I think that it's the other way around. Your vote matters, if you are actively involved in the system and work with others to have influence. If you are apathetic and do nothing, you remain politically isolated and don't get the choices you want. Politics is about group decision-making, and political victory is a collective effort. You have to engage with the group to accomplish anything. I do think that a lot of people are very narcissistic and want politicians to talk very specifically about their problems in their neighborhood, or want politicians to validate their feelings. But politics is about the whole country and how it should be managed, not about the people on your street and if you feel like the politician would like you.

quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust :

I suspect this will become even more visible once the democratic nominee is chosen. The supporters of the other candidate will feel cheated, and may not vote in November as a result...
I think this will be very rare. Obama and Clinton are way, way closer to each other than either is to McCain. I was an Edwards man all along, but I'll be voting for the Democrat in November no matter who it is. It is not possible for the Democrats to nominate someone as bad as McCain.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

It's actually not uncommon to see definitions of political systems that are intentionally so broad that they apply to families, corporations, etc
I'd say that the American political system is very different from the "politics" of a family or a corporation purely because the scale is far, far greater, and because the United States is a democracy. Families and corporations are not democracies. I see how all of these could fall under a very broad definition, but very broad definitions tend not to define, and are therefore not very useful.

[Edited for spelling.]

[ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 03:27: Message edited by: madrigan ]
Posts: 67 | Registered: Thursday, March 6 2008 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #18
quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

I'd say that the American political system is very different from the "politics" of a family or a corporation purely because the scale is far, far greater, and because the United States is a democracy. Families and corporations are not democracies. I see how all of these could fall under a very broad definition, but very broad definitions tend not to define, and are therefore not very useful.
Okay, since you're such a stickler for narrow definitions, give us a simple, non-arbitrary definition of "democracy" that includes the United States but excludes the Microsoft Corporation. I'm honestly not convinced that one exists.

(And don't bother talking about voting; in the scheme of things, voting is only a minor, peripheral element of the political process. The results you get by holding elections aren't all that different than the results you'd get in a dictatorship with the same power relations between individuals and groups -- unless of course those power relations are such that the development of a voting system becomes inevitable, in which case voting would be an effect of the political state of affairs, not a cause. Overlaying a voting system onto a given political milieu will not in itself make it any more or less democratic than it was before.)

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Warrior
Member # 15001
Profile #19
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

I'd say that the American political system is very different from the "politics" of a family or a corporation purely because the scale is far, far greater, and because the United States is a democracy. Families and corporations are not democracies. I see how all of these could fall under a very broad definition, but very broad definitions tend not to define, and are therefore not very useful.
Okay, since you're such a stickler for narrow definitions, give us a simple, non-arbitrary definition of "democracy" that includes the United States but excludes the Microsoft Corporation. I'm honestly not convinced that one exists.

(And don't bother talking about voting; in the scheme of things, voting is only a minor, peripheral element of the political process. The results you get by holding elections aren't all that different than the results you'd get in a dictatorship with the same power relations between individuals and groups -- unless of course those power relations are such that the development of a voting system becomes inevitable, in which case voting would be an effect of the political state of affairs, not a cause. Overlaying a voting system onto a given political milieu will not in itself make it any more or less democratic than it was before.)

I agree that voting is not sufficient to bring about a democracy. But it is necessary -- or, if you want, an actual, fair and free voting system is necessary. Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan have elections, but they're not democracies.

But first, back up. Are you arguing that the situation in the United States right now -- the laws, the status of various groups, the economy -- would be exactly the same if we had a dictatorship? If George Washington had declared himself king, history would have unfolded in exactly the same way? If there had been a Communist overthrow of the U.S. government during the 1950s, nothing would be different?

Perhaps you will say that if Washington had declared himself king, then this would have been the outcome of a difference in the power relations from what actually occurred. But this makes all of political history inevitable, and you know it wasn't. Power relations are not deterministic, any more than economics is deterministic. Events are complex and there is a strong random factor.

The voting system itself changes the "power relations between individuals and groups." It is not only an outcome of pre-existing relationships. It is odd that a group of powerful rich guys got together and built a system that reduced their power relative to the least powerful, but they did, and it has happened in many countries. People and groups do not make decisions based only on power relations.

We were discussing the definition of "politics," not the definition of "democracy." In a democracy, the individuals in the government are elected to serve the people. At Microsoft, employees are hired to serve Bill Gates. It is the exact opposite of a democracy. Do you not see that difference? Seriously. Bill Gates can fire any employee he wants. George Bush cannot "fire" a citizen. It is completely different.

I don't have a particular definition of politics in mind. There is no single, 100% accurate definition to fit all cases. But a definition of the term that cannot make a distinction between the power relations at a corporation and the power relations in a country is useless. I also do not think that it is useful to insist on a definition of a term that so contradicts the common, social understanding of the term that it makes understanding more difficult.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Thursday, March 6 2008 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #20
quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

But a definition of the term that cannot make a distinction between the power relations at a corporation and the power relations in a country is useless. I also do not think that it is useful to insist on a definition of a term that so contradicts the common, social understanding of the term that it makes understanding more difficult.
You may not think it's useful, but you're in disagreement with standard practice among political scientists. The phrase "Political system" is intentionally defined to be broad in political science.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #21
quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

All large democratic systems have political parties, because people naturally organize themselves to work towards a common goal -- even if that goal is fairly ambiguous as in the case of our very large parties in the U.S. Each party needs to choose a candidate, therefore, there will be a primary system. If we didn't have the parties, we could have dozens or hundreds of candidates for president, each with a tiny constituency. No candidate could receive enough votes to confer legitimacy. But that would never happen anyway unless we banned parties, which of course would be a bad idea.

I would change the system, though. The current primary system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. People in every state should vote on the same day, or days, in April or May. You count the votes and there's your nominee.

Who is talking about banning parties? All I want to see is the primary system changed so that we have the option in the general election to vote for the best candidate for the job. The current system elects a polarized candidate. You say a lot of stuff about things, but the effect is lost on me, sorry.

--------------------
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
Warrior
Member # 15001
Profile #22
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

But a definition of the term that cannot make a distinction between the power relations at a corporation and the power relations in a country is useless. I also do not think that it is useful to insist on a definition of a term that so contradicts the common, social understanding of the term that it makes understanding more difficult.
You may not think it's useful, but you're in disagreement with standard practice among political scientists. The phrase "Political system" is intentionally defined to be broad in political science.

The term in question is not "political system." It is "politics."

A definition of either of these terms which erases the differences between Microsoft and the United States is not broad, it is vague. It is not standard practice among political scientists to use vague definitions. It is standard practice among political scientists to define terms in ways that enhance understanding. A definition of "politics" or "political system" that does not allow us to distinguish between a corporation, an office, a country, and a group of friends at the movies would never be utilized by any political scientist.

A definition is not a concept. A definition defines. If you want to argue that there are multiple definitions of politics, fine. That is obviously true. If you want to argue that there is only one definition, and that it includes Microsoft and the United States without allowing for a distinction between the two, then you are arguing for a useless definition, and you can tell Donald Kinder I said so.
Posts: 67 | Registered: Thursday, March 6 2008 08:00
Warrior
Member # 15001
Profile #23
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by madrigan:

All large democratic systems have political parties, because people naturally organize themselves to work towards a common goal -- even if that goal is fairly ambiguous as in the case of our very large parties in the U.S. Each party needs to choose a candidate, therefore, there will be a primary system. If we didn't have the parties, we could have dozens or hundreds of candidates for president, each with a tiny constituency. No candidate could receive enough votes to confer legitimacy. But that would never happen anyway unless we banned parties, which of course would be a bad idea.

I would change the system, though. The current primary system is incredibly unfair and inefficient. People in every state should vote on the same day, or days, in April or May. You count the votes and there's your nominee.

Who is talking about banning parties? All I want to see is the primary system changed so that we have the option in the general election to vote for the best candidate for the job. The current system elects a polarized candidate. You say a lot of stuff about things, but the effect is lost on me, sorry.

No, I'm sorry. I meant for my post to be more personally relevant to you. What changes do you have in mind? You wrote, "Maybe someday we can move away from a system of primary elections that favor party over participation." And that means what, then? We keep the parties, but they do not play a role in the nomination process? Do you want more parties? Me too. But the presence of political parties is what keeps the electoral system from falling into complete disarray.

Not everyone gets to vote for the best candidate for the job, because not everyone believes the same person is best. That is why we have the election. To narrow the candidates, we need the primaries. To have the primaries, we need the parties in their current role.

As for polarization, what is the problem with that? Everyone thinks they're right. Only one person can be elected president at one time. Therefore, there will always be people who feel that the president is beyond the pale ideologically. At this time, we have in the U.S. a party who feels that ideological purity is more important than actually running the country, therefore, we have more extremists in the government than usual. But polarization is just part of the process. Politics is war, and someone loses, and they're never happy about it.

[ Wednesday, May 07, 2008 08:11: Message edited by: madrigan ]
Posts: 67 | Registered: Thursday, March 6 2008 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #24
If we didn't use parties, then imagine what would've happened this year. With all the candidates, the vote would've been massively dispersed. The president could potentially be elected with less than 20% of the vote...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
真実長ガス
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00

Pages