Can't they all just get along? Rep v Dem

[gamer102]

Wow, I thought the flag was "red, white, and blue", not "white, red or blue".

This is awkward. There are things that I like about republicans, and things that I like about democrats. I can't pick a side.

[SilverCrusader]

This is awkward. There are things that I like about republicans, and things that I like about democrats. I can't pick a side.
Don't, be independent. Republican and Democrat are broad terms to stereotype and generalize a group of people that have similar ideas. However, parties are the single most retarded thing ever invented, they just limit progress.

[3Vee]

"Can't they all just get along?" I actually have a problem with the fact that, indeed, they do get along quite well. You notice the last time we elected a third party or independent candidate to... anything? Yeah, about that. They need each other to survive and bring balance to the Force. Conservatives get to be Republican, Liberals get to be Democrat, and... yeah, it goes bad places.

I'm with SC, go independent.

[Gunmonk]

you know... I'm voting communist... they cant possibly be any worse than obama or mccain. Or maybe I wont vote at all... Can I really justify my decision?

I hate all the candidates... They dont represent my ideals, and I'm guessing they dont represent the ideals of anyone here... can I really vote for that? Essentially, I'm for radical reform.. I'm voting for whoever's running on the Zombie Ticket (Reagan and Truman '08)

[Ubergopher]

Gunmonk, if you don't vote you are not only an idiot, but a waste of a citizen. Voting is often the ONLY way an American can even slightly influence how the government is run, and IMO if you don't vote you lose all rights to bitch about who was elected.

[Magmaniac]

Gunmonk, if you don't vote you are not only an idiot, but a waste of a citizen. Voting is often the ONLY way an American can even slightly influence how the government is run, and IMO if you don't vote you lose all rights to bitch about who was elected.

you realize that we have an electoral college system so the only part of the process where you have a vote that actually counts is the caucus/primary stage right?

[Ubergopher]

you realize that we have an electoral college system so the only part of the process where you have a vote that actually counts is the caucus/primary stage right?
And the Senate, and the House, local and state governments. Also, when was the last time the state's electoral college voted against the popular vote in that state?

[Magmaniac]

And the Senate, and the House, local and state governments. Also, when was the last time the state's electoral college voted against the popular vote in that state?

In three presidential elections the president chosen by the popular vote was not the one chosen by the electoral college.
That means that we have had twelve years of presidencies that were not elected by the people. Twelve years is a lot.
And saying that the electors in each state go with the popular vote doesn't discredit my claim that your vote doesn't have an impact on that decision.

[SilverCrusader]

In three presidential elections the president chosen by the popular vote was not the one chosen by the electoral college.
That means that we have had twelve years of presidencies that were not elected by the people. Twelve years is a lot.
And saying that the electors in each state go with the popular vote doesn't discredit my claim that your vote doesn't have an impact on that decision.
Well simple majority doesn't work, and the whole reason the electoral college system was implemented was because back in the olden days the majority of Americans were farmers and wouldn't know that much about politics or the sort, so they decided to have an insurance policy to make sure that they wouldn't vote in someone not fit for the job - or so my history teacher told me.

[Magmaniac]

Well simple majority doesn't work, and the whole reason the electoral college system was implemented was because back in the olden days the majority of Americans were farmers and wouldn't know that much about politics or the sort, so they decided to have an insurance policy to make sure that they wouldn't vote in someone not fit for the job - or so my history teacher told me.

Look at the track record of our current president and tell me that the electoral college system works now.
Maybe it worked back in the late 1700s but modern politics is a completely different animal and our government system needs to be radically reformed to keep up with the pace or we are really just an oligarchy controlled by the democratic and republican parties.

[SilverCrusader]

Look at the track record of our current president and tell me that the electoral college system works now.
Maybe it worked back in the late 1700s but modern politics is a completely different animal and our government system needs to be radically reformed to keep up with the pace or we are really just an oligarchy controlled by the democratic and republican parties.
I never said it worked. Besides, it is just so we don't vote in Paris Hilton or something (pun!).

[Battlecruiser]

Gunmonk, if you don't vote you are not only an idiot, but a waste of a citizen. Voting is often the ONLY way an American can even slightly influence how the government is run, and IMO if you don't vote you lose all rights to bitch about who was elected.

If voting could change anything, they wouldn't have it. (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/22210615/candidates_for_sale)

It's all just a pretense/formality anyway.

Throw your vote to an independent/third party though, if you plan on not voting. They could really use your vote.

[WhatIsStarcraft]

Those people who are democrats, are not truly democrats. There are not a single fully democratic country in the entire world, so if Obama get elected as president, which is by businessmen and other politicians, and not the average joe, the US can't say it's a democratic country, and it can as hell not say that it spreads democracy, because it is not!!!

[Icarus]

Political parties do not necessarily represent certain political stances. Within the parties themselves there are diverse opinions on the same topics. To belong to a party really just means where your funding and staff come from.

People who "pick a side" and declare "i'm a democrat" or "i'm a republican" aren't part of some political school of thought, just a group of people who donate money to the same few guys.

[Modred]

Political parties do not necessarily represent certain political stances. Within the parties themselves there are diverse opinions on the same topics. To belong to a party really just means where your funding and staff come from.

Thank you for stating that different people have different opinions, Captain Obvious. Individual people will vary in their opinions from issue to issue, but to claim that nothing aside from money holds the political parties together is ludicrous. In such a situation, the official party platform would be completely irrelevant. There would be absolutely no reason to identify with a political party, especially the Democrats, since the Republicans generally throw much more money into elections than the Democrats. In your theory, everyone should be a Republican, since it would give them the most funding (and funds translate to staff when you have no political ideals to unite your base).

Political parties have general political ideals and theories shared by most of their members. When enough people in a single party no longer agree with everyone else in their party on certain key issues, the party splits. So what if one of the major parties hasn't had a serious split-off in 150 years; it only takes one or two election cycles for a major shift to occur.

[Ubergopher]

Those people who are democrats, are not truly democrats. There are not a single fully democratic country in the entire world, so if Obama get elected as president, which is by businessmen and other politicians, and not the average joe, the US can't say it's a democratic country, and it can as hell not say that it spreads democracy, because it is not!!!

What the hell are you saying? If I give you bleach will you drink it?

[SilverCrusader]

Those people who are democrats, are not truly democrats. There are not a single fully democratic country in the entire world, so if Obama get elected as president, which is by businessmen and other politicians, and not the average joe, the US can't say it's a democratic country, and it can as hell not say that it spreads democracy, because it is not!!!
Yes we are, who votes in the electoral college? We do.

Anyway, we're not a democracy, though we are a form of it. We are a representative democracy, also known as a republic. We vote people in to make choices for us. So yes, we the people do have power and voice in the government. Also, we can remove those we voted in by finding them guilty after an impeachment or by voting them out of office. Yes, we can do that.
I assure you, if an electoral college member voted against the popular vote of a state, he or she has a low chance of being in office after their next election.

You shouldn't vote republican or democrat just because you're one or the other. You should study each candidate and give your vote to which ever one supports you best.
Unfortunately though, people don't do that and we end up with whoever has the biggest wallet can afford the most advertising wins.

[WhatIsStarcraft]

What the hell are you saying? If I give you bleach will you drink it?

If you drank your own piss, would you shut up?



And now we can move to something more serious.

I assure you, if an electoral college member voted against the popular vote of a state, he or she has a low chance of being in office after their next election.


That makes it sound like a dictatorship. You can't vote on something that the majority votes on, because then you just get dumped out of office because you had your own opinion on something.

Unfortunately though, people don't do that and we end up with whoever has the biggest wallet can afford the most advertising wins.

I agree with you. It is sad, but true :concern:

[Ubergopher]

You can't vote on something that the majority votes on, because then you just get dumped out of office because you had your own opinion on something.




You shouldn't vote with the majority just because as an individual, you're right. The electoral college isn't an individual though. It represents the collective will of the people in said state through a majority vote. The elctoral college should vote with the will of the people in their state, because thats the right thing to do. Regardless. Those members of the electoral college still get their own personal vote I believe (someone should verify that), it is their JOB to go will the will of the people, and if someone doesn't do their job, they should lose it. Simple as that.

[DoctorZettabyte]

Those members of the electoral college still get their own personal vote I believe (someone should verify that), it is their JOB to go will the will of the people, and if someone doesn't do their job, they should lose it.
While a true statement, what's stopping them from voting as they please? Are ordinary citizens going to take time (days, weeks, months) to count up every single vote from every single precinct to prove that the politicians who they elected didn't vote as the people wanted to?

I highly doubt it. It only takes a few electoral votes here and there to make a world of difference.

-DocZetta

[Modred]

While a true statement, what's stopping them from voting as they please? Are ordinary citizens going to take time (days, weeks, months) to count up every single vote from every single precinct to prove that the politicians who they elected didn't vote as the people wanted to?

It's called CNN. They do the grunt work for you. You just have to open up a nice, interactive map that shows you all the relevant details. As far as counting the votes, I'm pretty sure that the election office handles that.

Seriously, there aren't that many electoral votes per state. It's not like it'll take you more than an hour or two to figure out if your states electors voted the way your state voted, and that's pushing it.

[Icarus]

There would be absolutely no reason to identify with a political party

there isn't. The only thing you can identify with are the politicians themselves.

In your theory, everyone should be a Republican, since it would give them the most funding (and funds translate to staff when you have no political ideals to unite your base).

how the hell did you get that from my post? I didn't say anything near what you're saying here. Reading comprehension plz

Political parties have general political ideals

Like what? Taxes? Spending? Abortion? Gay rights? War? Give me any supposed partisan ideal and I'll show you someone from the same party who's done the opposite, or someone from the opposing party doing the same.

[Modred]

how the hell did you get that from my post? I didn't say anything near what you're saying here. Reading comprehension plz

Political parties exist for funding and staff alone. Republicans spend more money. Therefore, it is advantageous to be a Republican, since you will have more money to spend. Therefore, Republican politicians should outnumber Democratic politicians by a large margin. All it takes to prove you incorrect by negation is to show that there aren't an overwhelming number of Republicans compared to Democrats, but I don't have any data on that. I think it's generally safe to say that the parties aren't particularly lopsided in number of politicians.

Like what? Taxes? Spending? Abortion? Gay rights? War? Give me any supposed partisan ideal and I'll show you someone from the same party who's done the opposite, or someone from the opposing party doing the same.

Once again, you state the obvious. Individuals will vary in opinion. If John McCain supported higher taxes, abortion, gay marriage, more government regulation, leaving Iraq now, legalizing marijuana, and gun control, would he be welcome in the Republican party? If not, why? You've already established that there are no generic political ideals shared between party members, so what would their problem be?

If a politician varies from his party line on a few matters it suggests that he or she is not a robot controlled by the respective party bosses. If they vary on every issue, it suggests they are in the wrong party.

[Icarus]

it is advantageous to be a Republican

How does that translate to I think republicans are right?

Or maybe he realizes that parties are just really big fundraisers, and that if he wanted a real shot at getting anywhere important, he'd get involved in a party.

If parties really were about certain issues, there'd be a variety of powerful parties, all with different partisan ideals. However this doesn't work out because none of the parties would get enough money to sustain large campaigns. American politicians being as they are, this didn't suit them. Thus began the dual party system we see today.

I'd like to point out that in other countries and in other times, parties were all about ideals.

[Modred]

How does that translate to I think republicans are right?

Or maybe he realizes that parties are just really big fundraisers, and that if he wanted a real shot at getting anywhere important, he'd get involved in a party.

If parties really were about certain issues, there'd be a variety of powerful parties, all with different partisan ideals. However this doesn't work out because none of the parties would get enough money to sustain large campaigns. American politicians being as they are, this didn't suit them. Thus began the dual party system we see today.

I'd like to point out that in other countries and in other times, parties were all about ideals.

I never said anything hinting that Republicans are correct or that you support them. Perhaps you should practice your own advice? And what's to stop an issue that deeply divides the nation from causing one political party to fracture and a new dominant party to rise from the fractures? The Republican party is itself a phoenix from the ashes of a few previous, small parties that hedged around politically divisive issues, such as slavery.

Also, you seem to be assuming that parties only have politicians in them. The vast majority of voters associate with a particular party; however, they do not receive funding or staff. Explain their affiliation. Switching from political party to social party for a moment, if you like one person in a group, but all of his friends contradict everything you believe in, will you stick around for a long time? I say the same applies to political parties. The draw of a single candidate cannot produce long-term voter support for a party, yet both parties have die-hard partisan veterans in the general public. Some sort of common political ideas provides a much more plausible explanation for this attraction than your proposed theory.

[Darmago]

Our current election methods cannot work without parties, but a Bi-Partisan system is almost completely stupid. If We had 3+ major parties then it wouldn't be so much of a problem

Also: Republicans aren't really conservative anymore. Conservatives like small government, and low government spending. But what has the latest so called "conservative" president done? Increased his power, increased the spending, and hell even broke the law and might get away with it. That is not a conservative. The republican party has gone from "conservative" to "evangelical".

[Icarus]

I never said anything hinting that Republicans are correct or that you support them.

In your theory, everyone should be a Republican

thank you

And what's to stop an issue that deeply divides the nation from causing one political party to fracture and a new dominant party to rise from the fractures?

Considering political parties don't necessarily represent political views, I'd say it's not happening.

Also, you seem to be assuming that parties only have politicians in them. The vast majority of voters associate with a particular party; however, they do not receive funding or staff. Explain their affiliation.

Haha I've never said that, and you seem to assume alot.

And again, Voters associate with parties because the politicians they like come from those parties.

The draw of a single candidate cannot produce long-term voter support for a party, yet both parties have die-hard partisan veterans in the general public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagon

all you've done thus far is make false assumptions about me and spout ignorance. Cn wee lyke debate fr cereal now???

[Modred]

Since you only seem capable to respond to short portions of a post at once, rather than in a coherent counter argument, I'll respond in a method you are familiar with.

thank you

Failure to understand the logical application of your theory is your shortcoming. I took three statements:

A: Political parties are only a source for money and staff.
B: Republicans spend more money on campaigns than Democrats.
C: Spending more money allows a candidate to better spread their views and attack their opponents, thus increasing their chance of victory.

You provided A, I provided B and C.

I contend, that if A and B and C are true, then it is advantageous to be a Republican. Further, if it is advantageous to be Republican, then there should be a significant imbalance in favor of Republicans. If you can't understand that, I suggest a Logic 101 class at a local community college.

Hint: To counter this argument, you should attack one of the predicates I assume to be true, instead of insulting my intelligence for using a logical proof.

Considering political parties don't necessarily represent political views, I'd say it's not happening.

You have not justified that position. Each of your posts has either been an insult to my intelligence, a response to a straw man, or a simple restatement of your original assertion that political parties are only for money and labor.

Haha I've never said that, and you seem to assume alot.

Once again, if I assume something, that means that I inferred it from your posts so far. Hence, you did not say it. Congratulations on understanding what the word "assume" means. And I believe my assumption was justified, as you claim political parties are merely a source of money and staffing for politicians. Common voters are not receiving money or workers from political parties, so your initial claim does not explain their affiliation.

And again, Voters associate with parties because the politicians they like come from those parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagon

Why were people drawn to these political candidates? Charm plays a large part, but their platforms are more important in the long run. Voters won over solely by charm will not stick with the party unless more charming politicians appear; the people who stick around identify with the issues that candidate espoused, thereby giving the party a set of common political ideals.

all you've done thus far is make false assumptions about me and spout ignorance.

I've made no assumptions about you (except the one at the top of this post); just about your argument. And yes, anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

Cn wee lyke debate fr cereal now???

You appear to be having a stroke. Seek medical help immediately.

[Icarus]

There is nothing wrong with your three clauses, however simply because it is advantageous to be a republican does not mean that in my "theory everyone should be a republican", that's just unfair to say. What is easy is not the same as what is right.

Alright, The dominant american political parties do not represent political views because:

A. It is not required to have certain views in order to register to a party
B. Individual members of said parties have varied opinions, even some that directly contradict the projected "opinion" of the party.
C. Often times politicians projecting standard "partisan values" while on campaign will legislate completely different once they are elected, defeating the purpose of partisan values.

I don't know if you can get away with saying that voters are drawn to charm and the issues in an either/or manner. There are various reasons that many people identify with politicians, and you can't generalize that. The point is that politician super-stars such as those have been mentioned over and over again in the party context. They have undoubtedly contributed to long-term support for their respective parties.

I apologize, at the time I was in a bad mood.