-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 12:26:36 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  "He kept us safe."
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: "He kept us safe."  (Read 10022 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 27, 2015, 04:05:04 PM »

ORR, while Nader's campaign is popularly blamed for Gore's loss, there's quite a bit of credible information that says it didn't: enough Nader voters probably would have voted Bush in the key states that it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

You also are weighing the flaws of an actual administration against the presumed strengths of optimistically seen would-have-been administration.

And as TRBB said, 3rd party spoilers can spoil either way. I don't think I said my 3rd party vote (if I eventually chose to go that route) would be for Sanders. It could pull from either side, hypothetically.

My stance is unchanged: people need to vote with their brains in sufficient numbers to topple the 2-party grip on our nation. There won't ever be a time (barring massive event) when the population can reasonably expect a third party to be a viable challenger without starting the process.
I totally agree thst we need a viable 3 or 4 party system. But that isn't happening in 2016! Nader got 97,421 votes in Florida, mostly Democrats. You can't deny the realities of the W Presidency. It was a disaster in every respect and in 100 yearss he will be regarded  as one of our worst Presidents.

There is nothing presumed about the Republican agenda.  Yeah, I guess I presumed from your writings that you were liberal.

If you want an uncorrupted candidate, you have one, the Donald. Though it seems he  is running mainly to give himself a big tax break, and in doing so, tripling the national debt.

OK, here is another attempt at clarifying my points.

First, the slightly tangential but interesting and important issue about Nader costing Gore 2000. Here is an interesting Salon article that claims that for however many liberals voted Nader (and yes, it was more than enough votes to change the election), far, far more self-described liberals voted for Bush. http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/   There are also studies of exit polls--hardly foolproof, but certainly interesting points to consider--showing that had Nader not run, Bush would have won because it wouldn't have been a simple matter of splitting those votes Democrat versus Republican: one has to consider the segment who would have stayed home. And those studies show exactly that: a sufficient percentage only came out to vote because of Nader, and wouldn't have voted otherwise. Other studies of actual ballots show that enough Nader voters voted Republican elsewhere on that same ballot to suggest they could well have voted Bush. Make sense? Not really. But does that make it impossible? Nope. So on the Nader issue, I think it's important to consider it holistically. There are a lot of inputs to the situation. Just because one superficially seems to be "the decider," so, too, could any number of others. And there are always those other possible outcomes we don't see because, well, they didn't happen.

Second, my own political affiliation. Certainly nonpartisan, though I do vote Democratic most of the time for lack of options and a certain nagging feeling toward the exact phenomenon we're discussing right now. But I voted Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Obama in the presidential elections for which I've been eligible to vote. I've voted Franken and Klobuchar and Mondale (!) for senate. (That's all I recall, there may have been others.) I vote Ellison regularly in the House. So you're correct that, in oversimplified terms (e.g., Republican v Democrat, or the moronic two-sided narrative we're force-fed), I'm a liberal. However... [Stay tuned for my "Origins" thread entry, which I've embarrassingly note written yet despite having started the f-cking thread! I'll get to it this evening. It's going to be sufficiently nuanced to piss off those not into those sorts of things.]

Third, the Bush administration. I wasn't saying you'd presumed anything about that train wreck. I'm not convinced he was a terrible person by any means, but I do think he was a pretty damn bad president with some awful, awful senior advisors. My point there was that you're measuring an actual terrible administration against a hypothetical great one. In some ways, you can go back to my answer about the Nader campaign to get my point. We can't know how a Gore administration would have played out, especially considering the admittedly unique circumstances of that decade. We can look at his history, at his record, and guess. But we'd be guessing. And from my perspective, for example, this is the guy whose wife led the shockingly absurd and heavy handed movement 30 years ago for what I consider to be censorship in the arts. Worse, it was idiotically pointed at hard rock and rap, as opposed to similarly "dangerous" content in, say, country, presumably because it offended her cultural and artistic sensibilities, not because of any difference. (I hated Tipper Gore in 1985 and sincerely thank Frank Zappa, John Denver, and Dee Snider for their great work.) No, a man is not his wife or vice versa, but I don't recall Sen. Gore publicly disowning her positions...

Fourth, an uncorrupted candidate. Trump is a fucking joke. His popularity is a damning condemnation of our idiotic nation's populace. Being loud, stupid, rude, and arrogant--while consistently failing to say anything remotely substantive or credible, instead riling up the dolts--is not "telling it like it is," much less "making America great again, as if there were some golden age we could revisit. (What is his golden age, anyway? We're never quite clear based on his ... is policy positions the right term, coming from someone who hasn't said anything remotely coherent yet? When exactly did America have a big wall keeping out them damn Mexicans, a strong leader who could get things done by "making deals" with foreign leaders, and whatever other fucktarded nonsense that reality tv star has vomited?) So please don't think I have anything good to say about that. (And there is nothing uncorrupted about him. He has made that much clear in his boasts about his up-to-now participation in politics.)

What I'm talking about is adding some actual competition to the political system, and breaking the two-party stranglehold. I wholly understand, sympathize with, and have sometimes caved to what you're talking about: voting for someone who probably won't win (or at least compete) is wasting a vote. But I firmly believe that if as many Americans despise our choices as say they do, if as many Americans hate our elected leaders as say they do, if as many Americans have priorities being ignored by elected officials as say they do, then the answer isn't for such a group to (as I keep saying) hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil (whichever side they think is that lesser evil). Rather, they should speak up and vote for the candidates they think are better options, be those options radical on this side, that, or the other. If we're a democratic republic, then we need to try harder to elect people who carry out our wishes, or at least vaguely represent our priorities.

The short-term likely result is failure. But with sufficient buy-in to what is painfully obvious logic, it doesn't take long for people to understand the actual reality: one person, one vote. The dollars can corrupt when you let them. The media can corrupt when you let it. The fear can paralyze when you let it. If people don't begin supporting third- (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth) party candidates, there will never be a time when we who proclaim a desire to see such candidates can begin voting for them. They won't rise from nowhere to be legitimate options. They will slowly grow.

That, or one can dream of changing the parties from within. Look at the Republican party the past five or six years to consider how that goes. Personally, I think the parties are too established, too self-serving, too institutionalized to allow the obvious improvement of more voices into the process. Whatever their rhetoric, they have no interest whatsoever in being challenged by anyone but one another. For fundamental change, there must be, well, fundamental change. Painful, full of shortfalls, but necessary.

(I'm no optimist, by the way. I'm more apt to drop out than go activist.)

Hope that all helped clarify what I'm talking about. Probably not. I babbled. Anyway, I'll also work on my personal political journey / profile and post that in the appropriate thread shortly. I actually wrote a lot of that here and cut and pasted it for purposes of coherence and relevance. Heh. Because this was so coherent and relevant.

In closing, it's opening night in the NBA. That's something I care about. Go Wolves!
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 27, 2015, 07:42:12 PM »

Actually, in 1992 the third-party vote gave the election to Clinton. Ross Perot was the ultimate troll.

Actually that's a popular misconception. If you look at the polls after Perot weirdly dropped out for that small period of time, Clinton was doing even better.

But the Republicans like to use the Perot thing to make the Clinton presidency seem less "valid."

It was valid, for sure...one in a long line of failures since LBJ. Smiley

I think what ended up hurting Bush the most in 1992 was him reneging on his tax pledge.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2015, 05:25:28 AM »

A recession, jobless recovery and high unemployment didn't help, either.

There's also just the reality that the public gets tired of one party and thinks the other will come in and make everything all better. "Change" and "outsiders" and "something new in Washington" and all that BS. It had been 12 years of Republicans in the presidency. Pretty tough to get 16, especially when the candidate is the ultimate establishment figure and not particularly charismatic.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2015, 07:57:54 AM »

Fourth, an uncorrupted candidate. Trump is a fucking joke. His popularity is a damning condemnation of our idiotic nation's populace. Being loud, stupid, rude, and arrogant--while consistently failing to say anything remotely substantive or credible, instead riling up the dolts--is not "telling it like it is," much less "making America great again, as if there were some golden age we could revisit. (What is his golden age, anyway? We're never quite clear based on his ... is policy positions the right term, coming from someone who hasn't said anything remotely coherent yet? When exactly did America have a big wall keeping out them damn Mexicans, a strong leader who could get things done by "making deals" with foreign leaders, and whatever other fucktarded nonsense that reality tv star has vomited?) So please don't think I have anything good to say about that. (And there is nothing uncorrupted about him. He has made that much clear in his boasts about his up-to-now participation in politics.)

Trump is not giving specifics.   LOL  Really!?  That's like complaining that Tom Brady hasn't also caught any touchdowns.  He's only been throwing them... what a loser Tom Brady is.

As if any candidate has been "specific" -- or needs to be.  That's such an establishment talking point... makes me chuckle.


What I'm talking about is adding some actual competition to the political system, and breaking the two-party stranglehold. I wholly understand, sympathize with, and have sometimes caved to what you're talking about: voting for someone who probably won't win (or at least compete) is wasting a vote. But I firmly believe that if as many Americans despise our choices as say they do, if as many Americans hate our elected leaders as say they do, if as many Americans have priorities being ignored by elected officials as say they do, then the answer isn't for such a group to (as I keep saying) hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil (whichever side they think is that lesser evil). Rather, they should speak up and vote for the candidates they think are better options, be those options radical on this side, that, or the other. If we're a democratic republic, then we need to try harder to elect people who carry out our wishes, or at least vaguely represent our priorities.

The short-term likely result is failure. But with sufficient buy-in to what is painfully obvious logic, it doesn't take long for people to understand the actual reality: one person, one vote. The dollars can corrupt when you let them. The media can corrupt when you let it. The fear can paralyze when you let it. If people don't begin supporting third- (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth) party candidates, there will never be a time when we who proclaim a desire to see such candidates can begin voting for them. They won't rise from nowhere to be legitimate options. They will slowly grow.

That, or one can dream of changing the parties from within. Look at the Republican party the past five or six years to consider how that goes. Personally, I think the parties are too established, too self-serving, too institutionalized to allow the obvious improvement of more voices into the process. Whatever their rhetoric, they have no interest whatsoever in being challenged by anyone but one another. For fundamental change, there must be, well, fundamental change. Painful, full of shortfalls, but necessary.

(I'm no optimist, by the way. I'm more apt to drop out than go activist.)

The two-party system blows -- I'll give you that.  But I'm not sure what you're complaining about.  The Left has been getting what it wants, regardless of who wins these fcking elections.  More government, less freedom.  More, more, more.  I don't know why you don't like it.  This is the creep of Socialism.  Both Party's are doing it.

Perhaps, if I may, what you don't like are the results.  But this is Socialism.  I'm always amazed to see people complaining about something -- then getting it and being angry.  Maybe you should stop wanting it.  But that never occurs to them.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2015, 07:59:35 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2015, 08:20:03 AM »

Actually, in 1992 the third-party vote gave the election to Clinton. Ross Perot was the ultimate troll.

Actually that's a popular misconception. If you look at the polls after Perot weirdly dropped out for that small period of time, Clinton was doing even better.

But the Republicans like to use the Perot thing to make the Clinton presidency seem less "valid."

It was valid, for sure...one in a long line of failures since LBJ. Smiley

I think what ended up hurting Bush the most in 1992 was him reneging on his tax pledge.

...more like how the Lefties use the "Hanging Chad" to make W's Presidency less valid.   Wink  That still frosts their berries!

Clinton probably had it regardless.  But who knows how much Perot deflated Bush's #s.  He certainly didn't help Bush.  But of course, there wouldn't have been a Ross Perot if HW Bush didn't suck.

What would be far more hypothetically interesting... is if Clinton didn't have the Media.  Now we're talking.  It's still up to each candidate to win their election -- but the media's love of Democrats is the most deciding external factor.  We live in TV HappyLand now.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2015, 08:21:41 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 28, 2015, 09:23:36 AM »

Fourth, an uncorrupted candidate. Trump is a fucking joke. His popularity is a damning condemnation of our idiotic nation's populace. Being loud, stupid, rude, and arrogant--while consistently failing to say anything remotely substantive or credible, instead riling up the dolts--is not "telling it like it is," much less "making America great again, as if there were some golden age we could revisit. (What is his golden age, anyway? We're never quite clear based on his ... is policy positions the right term, coming from someone who hasn't said anything remotely coherent yet? When exactly did America have a big wall keeping out them damn Mexicans, a strong leader who could get things done by "making deals" with foreign leaders, and whatever other fucktarded nonsense that reality tv star has vomited?) So please don't think I have anything good to say about that. (And there is nothing uncorrupted about him. He has made that much clear in his boasts about his up-to-now participation in politics.)

Trump is not giving specifics.   LOL  Really!?  That's like complaining that Tom Brady hasn't also caught any touchdowns.  He's only been throwing them... what a loser Tom Brady is.

As if any candidate has been "specific" -- or needs to be.  That's such an establishment talking point... makes me chuckle.


What I'm talking about is adding some actual competition to the political system, and breaking the two-party stranglehold. I wholly understand, sympathize with, and have sometimes caved to what you're talking about: voting for someone who probably won't win (or at least compete) is wasting a vote. But I firmly believe that if as many Americans despise our choices as say they do, if as many Americans hate our elected leaders as say they do, if as many Americans have priorities being ignored by elected officials as say they do, then the answer isn't for such a group to (as I keep saying) hold their noses and vote for the lesser evil (whichever side they think is that lesser evil). Rather, they should speak up and vote for the candidates they think are better options, be those options radical on this side, that, or the other. If we're a democratic republic, then we need to try harder to elect people who carry out our wishes, or at least vaguely represent our priorities.

The short-term likely result is failure. But with sufficient buy-in to what is painfully obvious logic, it doesn't take long for people to understand the actual reality: one person, one vote. The dollars can corrupt when you let them. The media can corrupt when you let it. The fear can paralyze when you let it. If people don't begin supporting third- (and fourth, and fifth, and sixth) party candidates, there will never be a time when we who proclaim a desire to see such candidates can begin voting for them. They won't rise from nowhere to be legitimate options. They will slowly grow.

That, or one can dream of changing the parties from within. Look at the Republican party the past five or six years to consider how that goes. Personally, I think the parties are too established, too self-serving, too institutionalized to allow the obvious improvement of more voices into the process. Whatever their rhetoric, they have no interest whatsoever in being challenged by anyone but one another. For fundamental change, there must be, well, fundamental change. Painful, full of shortfalls, but necessary.

(I'm no optimist, by the way. I'm more apt to drop out than go activist.)

The two-party system blows -- I'll give you that.  But I'm not sure what you're complaining about.  The Left has been getting what it wants, regardless of who wins these fcking elections.  More government, less freedom.  More, more, more.  I don't know why you don't like it.  This is the creep of Socialism.  Both Party's are doing it.

Perhaps, if I may, what you don't like are the results.  But this is Socialism.  I'm always amazed to see people complaining about something -- then getting it and being angry.  Maybe you should stop wanting it.  But that never occurs to them.

You either don't read what I write or don't understand it. I suspect it's the pair of funhouse lenses you insist on wearing, distorting everything. You're not quite incoherent, just sadly (laughably?) insistent on your one note, however irrelevant, tangential, or inaccurate. I'll try yet again to ignore you, though it's tough with your technicolor vomits on otherwise not unpleasant or uninteresting threads.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: October 28, 2015, 03:26:48 PM »

"Riling up the dolts" -- nice.   LOL  I read what you wrote.
Logged

409.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.558 seconds with 21 queries.