Election 2012: Conservatards vs Librodouches

Bucket said:

Actually, he was a pushy asshole. He interrupted the President and the moderator, didn't give a shit about his time limits

Yes because Obama stayed within the allotted time as well... oh wait. Did you know that overall Obama actually talked for four minutes more than Romney?

xepop said:

Romney is completely out of touch with reality and allround asshole. I'm amazed there's even a contest. I mean, shouldn't there be a somekind of requirement of rationality for being a president. What the heck?

At least, he is concerned with very important things.

This elections vote for me will be dependent on social issues.

And Romney's party sure isn't pro-rights.

TheCupboard said:
They spent 85% of their time rehashing the economy, "role" of government, and healthcare. Lame.

That's because it was a debate about the economy. The remaining ones will cover other topics, from what I've heard.

fraggle said:
To some extent we have a similar situation here in Britain but it's much more watered down.

Presidential systems are more extreme and when it's bad, it's worse, yet I think that on the other hand parliamentary systems tend to create convoluted faction alliances or dilute responsibility.

If I had to guess the main problem I'd say the two party system was to blame, and the two party system exists because of the plurality voting system.

It may contribute, but I wouldn't say it's all defined by the (electoral) system itself.

Satyr000 said:
Its like running up a huge amount of debit, then making the minimum payments with a credit card. At some point you are going to run out of credit.

Something like that could happen depending on other policies taken, but unlike in your analogy the guy using that credit card also owns the bank that issued it and a few other things.

On the flip side all this money the Fed is printing is artificially inflating the money supply. Thus causing massive inflation. All in all the US Gov is burning the candle at both ends. If or should I say when something gives there is a good chance we will see a significant drop in the over all value of the dollar. Even a small drop, like 10 or 15 percent, will have a disastrous effect. Factor in the fact that the dollar is the reserve currency for a number of countries and that the US is still the economic engine of world, its going to get ugly.

Printing money is inevitable unless the economy is supposed to shrink, because national economies are more like a living organism than domestic accounting or a business. US inflation is not very high, and could be even higher without too much trouble, but what really matters is where you put the money being gathered or pumped.

If you look at whats going on internationally, the US is becoming more isolated and in many ways countries are severing ties with the US. One of the more telling signs of this is the fact that even after the US gov told various NATO and UN officials not to, several high ranking officials went to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting this year. Countries such as China have been stockpiling gold for awhile now. So it looks like other countries are preparing for the worse and not allowing the US gov to push there government around.

What's happening is that the developing world economy is growing fast because there is room to do that, in terms of populations that can rise to a decent state of welfare, and this makes the US (and also Europe) comparatively smaller. Some of the apparent bad publicity for the West is simply that others, losing some of their fear, can be more frank and express some of their interests openly, but that doesn't necessarily imply (more) negative relations.

xepop said:
Romney is completely out of touch with reality and allround asshole. I'm amazed there's even a contest. I mean, shouldn't there be a somekind of requirement of rationality for being a president. What the heck?

Give him a break, the poor guy is trying to represent a ratio of dough to people that's so big that his discourse is incompatible with the human mind. If only paper bills and magnetic cards had brains!

myk said:

Presidential systems are more extreme and when it's bad, it's worse, yet I think that on the other hand parliamentary systems tend to create convoluted faction alliances or dilute responsibility.

It may contribute, but I wouldn't say it's all defined by the (electoral) system itself.

The electoral system is the biggest factor. A two party system is the logical and inevitable end result of a plurality voting system, because it makes voters concentrate on who they *don't* want to see elected. Suppose your biggest concern is the environment: are you going to vote for Jill Stein because she leads for a party that campaigns for environmental issues? Or are you going to vote for Obama, because you don't want Romney to win, and Obama might be a bit better on environmental issues than him? It should be obvious enough what most people do.

The reverse side of the coin is that it encourages consolidation of parties. So you have groups of people with different views who begrudgingly work together because they have no chance on their own. Just look at the different arms of the Republican party: you've got socially conservative evangelicals, Ron Paul-style libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and so on. In a plurality voting system voters can only choose one party, so it's inevitable that smaller parties will combine to collect as many votes as possible.

Duverger's law has been proven time and time again to be correct: countries with plurality voting almost always end up with two dominant parties, while countries that use preferential systems tend to have many smaller parties. Personally I think that the latter is better: it's more democratic as it better captures the opinions of the electorate.

Obviously that's not the end of the story: there's a big difference between the US and the UK for example, where there are several smaller parties at least represented in the parliament. The US seems to be a particularly pathological case and you might argue that the differences in the design of the government influence that: perhaps the three-way president/house/senate split makes it harder for small parties to survive. But in the end, the two party system is the result of the electoral system and will never go away until that system is reformed.

pilottobombadier said:

Relapse didn't exactly suck, though. I think Al's starting to realize that it's same shit different day with a candidate from either party.

I didn't really like Relapse so much. The only song I like is "United Forces," and that's an S.O.D. cover, not even done that well. I prefer their older stuff from the late 80's and early 90's, but some early 2000's stuff is good, too.

Romney and Obama are both war mongering neocon sellouts. They shouldn't have locked Gary Johnson (ninja edit)out* the debate, but then again he might have destroyed the two party blame game.

fraggle said:
A two party system is the logical and inevitable end result of a plurality voting system, because it makes voters concentrate on who they *don't* want to see elected.

A more defined left and right arrangement is guaranteed, but the US two party system means that the same two parties have lasted like forever, and would have fallen apart without a bunch of rules and economic means that help keep smaller parties out. To me that has more to do with the US role as a world power, and a socio-economic elite that dominated the country, than just the system that demands that the voters make a bigger bet when they vote than in a more preferential system. Other presidential countries also have a general left and right choice in most elections, but parties sometimes come and go or mutate.

So you have groups of people with different views who begrudgingly work together because they have no chance on their own.

But they influence that party they joined, and may sometimes have more chances to introduce part of their aims through a bigger body than a small "independent" bloc of representatives wading in a large parliament.

Just look at the different arms of the Republican party: you've got socially conservative evangelicals, Ron Paul-style libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and so on.

And they all tend to be privilege defenders rather than egalitarians. They may seem rather different but have some interesting political dynamics.

Personally I think that the latter is better: it's more democratic as it better captures the opinions of the electorate.

I think it's healthy for the legislature so it can pump out many ideas to debate and cultivate a better society, but an executive needs more character to carry out policies and not be lost in a maze of schizophrenic interests that paralyze each other. In democracy, "demos" means the city state, which stands for the citizens, that are all the responsible population in modernity. Being able to get "someone like you" elected doesn't always do more for you than voting a bigger and more generic figure that can actually "get something done" or have enough social backing to defend your interests in the global world.

To me systems can't be generalized (no one system fits all) and democracy depends more on ground up factors depending on political parity and wealth distribution, and local power or sovereignty. Whether the system needs more or less parties should depend on cultural idiosyncrasies. I think that the problem in most "under developed" areas is when they try to use political systems taylored for (and by) others. Look at the indebted Mediterranean nations of Europe. They try too hard to act or administer themselves like Anglo-Germanics. They need systems that channel their own character, culture and even genetic subtleties and not to import what's done in the North if they want to "be themselves" and thrive. An imitation is never as good as the real deal. You're always one step behind, trying to see what the trend makers are up to. If were are different from each other, at least a bit, we'll need different organizational systems or aspects, even while we share much.

Who's more keen on improving the United States' appallingly bad healthcare system, considering it's arguably the most technologically advanced nation in the world? I'd go with him.

DeathevokatioN said:

Romney and Obama are both war mongering neocon sellouts. They shouldn't have locked Gary Johnson (ninja edit)out* the debate, but then again he might have destroyed the two party blame game.

No more than Ron Paul swayed the hearts and minds of a large portion of the American populace. I like Gary Johnson (quite a lot, actually), and would love to see him emerge as a viable option this election, but a combination of tradition and the lack of finance reform pretty much prevent him from getting any sort of recognition. Most anything he'd say at a presidential debate would be met with scoffing and sarcastic smiles from the opponents.

I'm voting for the guy, but Obama's going to take CA regardless of what I do.

eargosedown said:

And Romney's party sure isn't pro-rights.

And Obama's party is? You mean the party that thinks that govt. should be able to prohibit us from drinking soft drinks bigger than 16oz? You mean the party that wants to take our guns away? You mean the party that wants to tell us what type of cars we can drive and cannot drive? You mean the party that wants to tell us how much electricity we can use, how much money we should earn all for the sake of "fairness." Oh yeah but they're totally cool with the whole gay marriage and abortion thing. Yeah, big whoop.

One-party system.

doom_is_great said:

And Obama's party is? You mean the party that thinks that govt. should be able to prohibit us from drinking soft drinks bigger than 16oz? You mean the party that wants to take our guns away? You mean the party that wants to tell us what type of cars we can drive and cannot drive? You mean the party that wants to tell us how much electricity we can use, how much money we should earn all for the sake of "fairness." Oh yeah but they're totally cool with the whole gay marriage and abortion thing. Yeah, big whoop.

I for one would like to marry another woman. The difference between gay marriage and regulation of things like food is safety of the general population. Me marrying another lady isn't going to cause cancer or obesity.

AndrewB said:

One-party system.

This.

The pseudo-distinctions between the Democratic and Republican party exist to perpetuate the puppet show keeping the masses distracted. Neither candidate is for election reform, neither candidate is for truly effective economic reform, neither candidate is for a *real* health care system that does more than mandate that people have to buy insurance even when they cannot afford it, neither candidate is for rights or freedoms being restored. Neither candidate is a constitutionalist with the guts to stand up and denounce the total failure of our system to live by its own laws. At a point in time where the very foundations of our society threaten to crumble, national dialogue is focused on the dead horses of gay marriage, abortion, and Medicare. Why? Because those issues occupy the narrow minds of the average voter, who will vote against their own personal interests just to "stick it" to some other group. The system is playing off hatred and bigotry; they empower it.

While everyone is busy "deciding" Democrat or Republican, the same group of corporatist thugs, friends of both Democrat AND Republican so long as the price is right, retains true control over the Congress, which is all that matters.

The failure of the Occupy movement to morph into an alternative to the two-party system as its own new party dooms it to irrelevance, ultimately. You can focus on good deeds and the such, but they're NOT going to change the world when it is being pressed to obliteration beneath the malevolent thumb of the most powerful cabal to ever arise thus far in human history.

-

Quasar said:
Neither candidate is a constitutionalist with the guts to stand up and denounce the total failure of our system to live by its own laws.

This is a puritan conception of written law. You can never live fully by your laws. Laws are always flawed. And more importantly, the constitution is always outdated and continually reinterpreted. Worshiping the constitution is like those religious practitioners that are obsessed with their scriptures. It's very important, but it's not God.

While everyone is busy "deciding" Democrat or Republican, the same group of corporatist thugs, friends of both Democrat AND Republican so long as the price is right, retains true control over the Congress, which is all that matters.

Something like that, barring the fact that it's not all that matters, yet, the sadly limited system also contains countless efforts by citizens to push democratic (in the broad, not party, sense) or popular agendas. As Pasolini noted in a movie (it was a sort of documentary or in-the-making for another movie) I saw the other day, problems are not solved, they are lived. You can't deny that, whatever the steep limitations, the parties do also grant some sort of debate in a dual system. Imagine even less, it's a very real possibility. Thank a trillion little efforts for what there is.

Life is really problematic and full of woes. Are you going to shoot yourself to get rid of them? Politics is a constant struggle and is all about little gains. Bigger changes only come when little steps add up and cause a greater shift that no one in particular can control, with indeterminate consequences. Nothing is more deluded than concentrating on a big change when all the pathetic little steps that need to be taken immediately are ignored in a nihilistic response to the huge flaws of the system, politics in general or the amounts of social injustice.

At a point in time where the very foundations of our society threaten to crumble, national dialogue is focused on the dead horses of gay marriage, abortion, and Medicare. Why?

Because the issue goes well beyond the dual and muddled party system.

You can focus on good deeds and the such, but they're NOT going to change the world when it is being pressed to obliteration beneath the malevolent thumb of the most powerful cabal to ever arise thus far in human history.

You can never change the world, just make a little difference. And when that little difference is close to the maximum you can do, it's everything and the greatest thing in humanity, even if it doesn't even have a clear effect. Everything else is a scam following a deceptive carrot ever dangling beyond your reach. Since action is social and not merely individual, as individuals, we can't just measure our contribution in an utilitarian way. We don't have all the picture, so all we can really play is our minuscule part. Not playing it because others aren't playing it fails it. We are each tiny cells of society, not its brains. The brains of humanity are a complex, convoluted result of all our tiny interactions. We may be pretty smart individually but the sum of humanity makes a huge dumb animal, but it's even stupider if we don't admit that and work in consequence, however dreary, limited, indirect and slow that may be.

Rayzik said:
The only real problem is the lack of information and teaching regarding the consequences. American citizens act as though they have no responsibilities, including their own health, and that's the majority of the problem for almost every issue we have at the moment.

It's not that they "choose to act" petulantly or on a whim, there are real problems with access to education and decision making that don't allow them empowered responses. Health is the access to medicine and immediate services, but it's also access to information. You can even call it "health capital" in the same way that accumulating intellectual or social capacities is a form of wealth and power, and extends simple monetary or property-based wealth. But it's not the only problem because information is only useful when you can put it to use.

If you had a medicine TV channel telling you everything about medical issues, it could help, but if your material access to medical materials and services is limited you won't appreciate it or may even never pay attention to it. Its limited value would not be worth the time compared to access to such a channel with all the right means. The other side of the coin is also true: you can provide all the medicine in the world but will just generate drug abusers if knowledge on medicine and its application is not transparent.

The debate on abortion illustrates this. To reduce it, because you can't eradicate it, you can allow it openly (provide access) and need to increase sexual education. But to do so you have to bypass the hurdles of social conservatism and some business interests; doctors who make money from being able to pressure people wanting to access something that is illegal or restricted. Economic and socially conservative restrictions to other aspects of medicine also have that effect, even though it may not be so evident. The result makes the population "medically brutish", but rather than their fault, or simply a matter of information to choose, it's because they were sidelined economically (where info is just part of this) from access to medical benefits.

This sidelining makes people feel responsibilities are in vain, or even something that benefits others rather than themselves. I'd urge a person, individually, to take action (responsibility) in things he can do, yet, it's also a matter of pushing, little by little, for policies that will encourage that, giving them the power to appreciate their responsibility. Otherwise, however well intended, the wish for people to make responsible choices falls on ears that are deafened by their frustrations. Worse if it's used as a justification to block such empowering policies.

I voted Huy is a Faggot because neither candidate is looking real hot. I'll probably vote for Romney though. That or a write in for Stephen Colbert Herman Cain.

yukib1t said:

I for one would like to marry another woman. The difference between gay marriage and regulation of things like food is safety of the general population. Me marrying another lady isn't going to cause cancer or obesity.

The idea that govt. can rid the US population of obestiy through regulation is absolute nonsense. No amount of regulation can ever replace individual discipline and self-control. The law in New York which prohibits people from buying soft drinks bigger than 16oz is not only a bit "orwellian" but is just totally nonsensical. What is going to stop a person from buying two 16oz drinks? If a person really wants to drink 32oz of coke or whatever, they'll buy two 16oz sodas. Like most govt. laws, this ridiculous law doesn't solve anything. Besides, if a person wants to eat "unhealthy" food, isn't that their individual right?

The law isn't messing with their rights; it's messing with companies' rights to sucker the stupid animals that are consumers into buying things they don't need because it looks like a better deal. 99% of people aren't going to buy two fountain drinks at once because it's a pain in the ass to do it. The lawmakers involved know full well that you can go buy two, or just go to Sprawlmart and buy a couple gallons of the stuff for $5, but they know that changing people's environment so the path is least resistance is less destructive works very well.

I don't understand why conservatives (and sadly Americans in general) always think just telling people not to do things again and again will change their behaviour. This has never worked. Sex is a fine example. People will only abstain from sex if you put a gun to their heads, and probably not even then, so teach them about fucking safely instead. Variations on this theme apply to so many parts of society, and there are lots of other countries that do these things well.

I honestly hope this kind of law spreads. Maybe add a nice tax to pop too. Use it to make healthier things cheaper instead of just subsidizing the corn producers to make cheap sugar.

doom_is_great said:
The idea that govt. can rid the US population of obestiy through regulation is absolute nonsense. No amount of regulation can ever replace individual discipline and self-control.

If regulation of certain products were the only policy, it would certainly be very weak or in vain. But it starts to work if combined with other forms of economic and corporate regulation, plus access to basic economic rights, education and medical advice.

"Individual discipline and self-control" here is a political fabrication, as individuals are heavily conditioned by political and economic forces that are much greater than themselves. This conditioning grows steeper the poorer you are, as your decision-making means and power become more limited. So, in the end, you aren't defending individual choice, just the choice of people or groups who have the fortune to be able to choose more. If you want more freedom, instead of defending the freedom of a few at the expense of the others, you'll have to support policies that allow the masses to obtain that freedom. Relying dogmatically on an ideal of "not messing with things through public policy" doesn't generate freedom, it protects privileges.

Anyone who votes for Obomney should be put to death

Tarnsman said:

Yes because Obama stayed within the allotted time as well... oh wait. Did you know that overall Obama actually talked for four minutes more than Romney?

The time limit is artificial anyway. There need not be one, and in fact it only discourages real discussion. The whole point of an actual, honest debate is to explore subjects and hopefully learn something, not to "win". But this is not a real debate, it's show business and it is that way by design. A real debate would only highlight the fact that having the federal government in control of so much, while being so far removed from local issues is not just wasteful, but simply ludicrous.

You actually believe Romney is any different from Obama??

Violator said:

You actually believe Romney is any different from Obama??

Look, the two party system isn't perfect, and nobody in this thread is claiming that it is. But the people who repeatedly insist on shouting at everyone that they have to vote third party aren't helping anything either. I don't get why third party candidates are being put up on a pedestal as if they're superior human beings. They're politicians too and will say anything they need to say to get support from their constituents. Ron Paul / Gary Johnson / Jill Stein are not necessarily better than Obama / Romney. The two candidates have expressed some very important differences in their platforms and ideologies in both domestic and foreign policy and, while they have some basic similarities, I certainly wouldn't consider them the same.

The two party system isn't going anywhere for a while and it's not going to be changed by people making unsubstantiated claims on the internet. If you're going to look down on us for favoring one, maybe you should present some evidence to support what you're saying.

Violator said:

Anyone who votes for Obomney should be put to death

Yeah, great way to get your point across in a rational way, man.

Violator said:

You actually believe Romney is any different from Obama??

You actually think he's not?

Try to convince me that the things he disagrees with Obama about are not important.

Both candidates are exactly the same

Maybe relative to your radical pie-in-the-sky ideas about how the country should be run.

I can't believe I associate with you people.
Has Godwin's Law been invoked yet?

exp(x) said:

You actually think he's not?

Try to convince me that the things he disagrees with Obama about are not important.

Let me add on to this. This goes out to all Romney supporters out there.

Tell me the good qualities of Romney, and why he'd make a good president. Challenge level: You can't mention Obama, or the Democratic party. You can't mention personal life, or religion. You can only mention concrete policies his campaign has presented.

Sonic's title is getting really fucking annoying.

-