Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sluissa]

Or rather, regulating your intake to sane amounts and exercising will be good for your health regardless of how crappy it is the stuff that you're actually eating. As it turns out, moderation (he limited himself to a 2000-calorie diet) is a good thing. Who knew?

Though additionally, he lost weight. He said nothing about the rest of his overall health, other than that he lost weight.

Anyway, my point is it shouldn't matter so much whether they're democrat or republican but what they stand for... unfortunately once they get into office there's a lot of pressure to "fall in line" on both sides so what an individual thinks rarely matters.

[RedKing]

Dems will tax you and use that money to pave your roads, build a park, fund your schools.

Have you ever been to southeast Michigan?  One of the bluest-of-blue voting histories - I'm talking Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties here (you can probably add Genesee county where Flint is, too).  We have an astonishing number of dirt roads, and the ones we paved would often actually be better if they were dirt instead of the concrete rubble they are...and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up on the condition of public education in these counties (and you can't blame the current state administration either - these problems have been generations in the making, and will likely take generations to fix).

Anyway my point is actually to say: whatever party label you have, you are not going to get what you think you're going to get from your taxes.  What will get you what you want from your tax dollars is people of integrity - regardless of their party label.  Sadly, "integrity" is not something that is all that common in politics...

I totally agree. However the Republican Party has, over the last 30 years, become a party antithetically opposed to the very idea of government services. These are people who talk about wanting to have government so small they can "choke it to death". It's not a political difference of how best to deliver services, or which services to prioritize, it's a political difference of whether to HAVE services.

I imagine that at the local level, there are still Republicans who believe in delivering public services efficiently, modestly and being fiscally responsible. Those people are in the wrong damn party at this point, which is why you're seeing more and more of them leaving.

[sluissa]

Dems will tax you and use that money to pave your roads, build a park, fund your schools.

Have you ever been to southeast Michigan?  One of the bluest-of-blue voting histories - I'm talking Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties here (you can probably add Genesee county where Flint is, too).  We have an astonishing number of dirt roads, and the ones we paved would often actually be better if they were dirt instead of the concrete rubble they are...and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up on the condition of public education in these counties (and you can't blame the current state administration either - these problems have been generations in the making, and will likely take generations to fix).

Anyway my point is actually to say: whatever party label you have, you are not going to get what you think you're going to get from your taxes.  What will get you what you want from your tax dollars is people of integrity - regardless of their party label.  Sadly, "integrity" is not something that is all that common in politics...

I totally agree. However the Republican Party has, over the last 30 years, become a party antithetically opposed to the very idea of government services. These are people who talk about wanting to have government so small they can "choke it to death". It's not a political difference of how best to deliver services, or which services to prioritize, it's a political difference of whether to HAVE services.

I imagine that at the local level, there are still Republicans who believe in delivering public services efficiently, modestly and being fiscally responsible. Those people are in the wrong damn party at this point, which is why you're seeing more and more of them leaving.

It's because government has become more beholden to corporations than to people. That goes for both sides as well. Even the often maligned "regulations" the democrats tend to propose are very mild and tend to leave plenty of room for corporations to maneuver within.

Republicans want the ability for corporations to freely shit all over the common people. Democrats just want them to get a permit to do it.

[smjjames]

Dems will tax you and use that money to pave your roads, build a park, fund your schools.

Have you ever been to southeast Michigan?  One of the bluest-of-blue voting histories - I'm talking Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties here (you can probably add Genesee county where Flint is, too).  We have an astonishing number of dirt roads, and the ones we paved would often actually be better if they were dirt instead of the concrete rubble they are...and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up on the condition of public education in these counties (and you can't blame the current state administration either - these problems have been generations in the making, and will likely take generations to fix).

Anyway my point is actually to say: whatever party label you have, you are not going to get what you think you're going to get from your taxes.  What will get you what you want from your tax dollars is people of integrity - regardless of their party label.  Sadly, "integrity" is not something that is all that common in politics...

I totally agree. However the Republican Party has, over the last 30 years, become a party antithetically opposed to the very idea of government services. These are people who talk about wanting to have government so small they can "choke it to death". It's not a political difference of how best to deliver services, or which services to prioritize, it's a political difference of whether to HAVE services.

I imagine that at the local level, there are still Republicans who believe in delivering public services efficiently, modestly and being fiscally responsible. Those people are in the wrong damn party at this point, which is why you're seeing more and more of them leaving.

That makes the Republican party sound like they should be called the Libertarian party. since they share the idea of reducing government until it's barebones or even non-existent (in that case, they'd have no jobs).

Also, where are those Republicans leaving to? Not the Democrats most likely, and independent just means you don't associate with any specific party.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's because government has become more beholden to corporations than to people. That goes for both sides as well. Even the often maligned "regulations" the democrats tend to propose are very mild and tend to leave plenty of room for corporations to maneuver within.

Republicans want the ability for corporations to freely shit all over the common people. Democrats just want them to get a permit to do it.

That's a false equivalence, and I say this as someone who has gone basically socialist at this point. Even if the Dems are partly corrupted by the doner class, their enlightened self-interest is preferable to the Republican's blood and gore bring about the ashes of the end screaming and stabbing suicidal self-interest.

The Democrats aren't going to cancerously consume all potential for us to have paying jobs, healthcare, internet that isn't an advertisement, streets without neo-nazi militants, or food without plague rats in it. The Republicans look on that stuff with glee these days.

[sluissa]

It's because government has become more beholden to corporations than to people. That goes for both sides as well. Even the often maligned "regulations" the democrats tend to propose are very mild and tend to leave plenty of room for corporations to maneuver within.

Republicans want the ability for corporations to freely shit all over the common people. Democrats just want them to get a permit to do it.

That's a false equivalence, and I say this as someone who has gone basically socialist at this point. Even if the Dems are partly corrupted by the doner class, their enlightened self-interest is preferable to the Republican's blood and gore bring about the ashes of the end screaming and stabbing suicidal self-interest.

The Democrats aren't going to cancerously consume all potential for us to have paying jobs, healthcare, internet that isn't an advertisement, streets without neo-nazi militants, or food without plague rats in it. The Republicans look on that stuff with glee these days.

And you're turning it into a "only two choices" argument again when it's simply not true. There are other options out there and even if you say "Third parties have no chance" Well we can still fix the parties we have.

They're both broken and just because one is a little less broken than another doesn't mean it's good enough. We need to fix this shit.

You offer me a bowl of shit versus a spoon of shit and say "The spoon is better, just take it." And I say nay. Neither are good enough and I'm tired of eating shit.

[Trekkin]

It's because government has become more beholden to corporations than to people. That goes for both sides as well. Even the often maligned "regulations" the democrats tend to propose are very mild and tend to leave plenty of room for corporations to maneuver within.

Republicans want the ability for corporations to freely shit all over the common people. Democrats just want them to get a permit to do it.

That's a false equivalence, and I say this as someone who has gone basically socialist at this point. Even if the Dems are partly corrupted by the doner class, their enlightened self-interest is preferable to the Republican's blood and gore bring about the ashes of the end screaming and stabbing suicidal self-interest.

The Democrats aren't going to cancerously consume all potential for us to have paying jobs, healthcare, internet that isn't an advertisement, streets without neo-nazi militants, or food without plague rats in it. The Republicans look on that stuff with glee these days.

And you're turning it into a "only two choices" argument again when it's simply not true. There are other options out there and even if you say "Third parties have no chance" Well we can still fix the parties we have.

They're both broken and just because one is a little less broken than another doesn't mean it's good enough. We need to fix this shit.

You offer me a bowl of shit versus a spoon of shit and say "The spoon is better, just take it." And I say nay. Neither are good enough and I'm tired of eating shit.

So what do you intend to do about it?

[Greiger]

Just going to throw in my obligatory 'two party system is killing the United States' thing here as my 2 copper plated zinc disk response to the current debate.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I am perfectly willing to discuss strategies for third parties or more likely entryism, but in the process of doing that it is irresponsible to say that the two as is are the same. That's how we got Trump, because people thought he was "different". Even some leftists supported him because he "wasn't a politician". That is the consequence of this kind of shitty rhetoric.

[Trekkin]

Just going to throw in my obligatory 'two party system is killing the United States' thing here as my 2 copper plated zinc disk response to the current debate.

Sure. What voting system do you want to push to replace FPTP with? Because the two-party system is a direct consequence of first-past-the-post voting.

[redwallzyl]

Dems will tax you and use that money to pave your roads, build a park, fund your schools.

Have you ever been to southeast Michigan?  One of the bluest-of-blue voting histories - I'm talking Wayne, Oakland, and Washtenaw counties here (you can probably add Genesee county where Flint is, too).  We have an astonishing number of dirt roads, and the ones we paved would often actually be better if they were dirt instead of the concrete rubble they are...and I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up on the condition of public education in these counties (and you can't blame the current state administration either - these problems have been generations in the making, and will likely take generations to fix).

Anyway my point is actually to say: whatever party label you have, you are not going to get what you think you're going to get from your taxes.  What will get you what you want from your tax dollars is people of integrity - regardless of their party label.  Sadly, "integrity" is not something that is all that common in politics...

As a Michigander I disagree with your assessment of cause. Democrats have wanted infrastructure for a long time but republicans, one of which is the governor, don't want to pay for it although both want it. just because part of the state is blue doesn't mean they have the money. the SE has rather a lot of problems what with the collapse of Detroit and all and it got hit hard by the recession and then bankers were put in control to forcibly extract money form many poor and black communities, "emergency managers" my ass.

[sluissa]

It's because government has become more beholden to corporations than to people. That goes for both sides as well. Even the often maligned "regulations" the democrats tend to propose are very mild and tend to leave plenty of room for corporations to maneuver within.

Republicans want the ability for corporations to freely shit all over the common people. Democrats just want them to get a permit to do it.

That's a false equivalence, and I say this as someone who has gone basically socialist at this point. Even if the Dems are partly corrupted by the doner class, their enlightened self-interest is preferable to the Republican's blood and gore bring about the ashes of the end screaming and stabbing suicidal self-interest.

The Democrats aren't going to cancerously consume all potential for us to have paying jobs, healthcare, internet that isn't an advertisement, streets without neo-nazi militants, or food without plague rats in it. The Republicans look on that stuff with glee these days.

And you're turning it into a "only two choices" argument again when it's simply not true. There are other options out there and even if you say "Third parties have no chance" Well we can still fix the parties we have.

They're both broken and just because one is a little less broken than another doesn't mean it's good enough. We need to fix this shit.

You offer me a bowl of shit versus a spoon of shit and say "The spoon is better, just take it." And I say nay. Neither are good enough and I'm tired of eating shit.

So what do you intend to do about it?

What do you want me to do about it? I vote, that's about all I can do.

I am perfectly willing to discuss strategies for third parties or more likely entryism, but in the process of doing that it is irresponsible to say that the two as is are the same. That's how we got Trump, because people thought he was "different". Even some leftists supported him because he "wasn't a politician". That is the consequence of this kind of shitty rhetoric.

We got Trump because he lied out his ass and promised everyone everything they wanted and nobody bothered hearing when he was promising things they didn't want. We got Trump because he was running against the embodiment of corruption in politics. We got Trump because the system is broken and that's what you get when the system is broken. I'm still not sold that Clinton would have been better. At least people have been shocked out of their complacency... if only a little and so far seemingly to no effect.

[smjjames]

Just going to throw in my obligatory 'two party system is killing the United States' thing here as my 2 copper plated zinc disk response to the current debate.

Sure. What voting system do you want to push to replace FPTP with? Because the two-party system is a direct consequence of first-past-the-post voting.

Yeah, Trump effectively entered as a third party politician while wearing the skin (or jersey, if you want to be less macabre) of the Republican party. Sanders did pretty much the same thing.

Absent some sort of aggressive years or even decades long ground-up campaign by a third party to erode away the other two or some sort of massive split (like Teddy Roosevelts Bull Moose party), the only way to guarantee success in the current system is by joining the camp of either party.

@sluissa: Clinton would have been way more competent though, regardless of whether you think she'd start a war with Russia or not.

[Greiger]

Just going to throw in my obligatory 'two party system is killing the United States' thing here as my 2 copper plated zinc disk response to the current debate.

Sure. What voting system do you want to push to replace FPTP with? Because the two-party system is a direct consequence of first-past-the-post voting.

I'm a fan of the alternative vote myself from everything I've learned about other voting systems.  Or, and I'm probably being overly idealistic here, but since almost nobody seems really happy with democrats or republicans, all the people who wouldn't be satisfied with either one could simply grow a pair and vote 3rd party. Since we seem to have the party line voters outnumbered at least 5 to 1.

If trump wasn't the ONLY republican option on the ballot that didn't require a write in, and Sanders was even ON the ballot because only two choices are allowed in our two party biased system, I don't think we'd have orange slice in office right now.  Trump is in office because the choice was Trump OR Clinton.  The way it's set up currently they don't want people to even know you can choose anyone else.   How many of those big republicans were famously against trump during his campaign but still voted for him because the only alternative was a democrat?

[RedKing]

We got Trump because he lied out his ass and promised everyone everything they wanted and nobody bothered hearing when he was promising things they didn't want.

As opposed to every politician ever?

We got Trump because he was running against the embodiment of corruption in politics. We got Trump because the system is broken and that's what you get when the system is broken. I'm still not sold that Clinton would have been better. At least people have been shocked out of their complacency... if only a little and so far seemingly to no effect.

I'm with MSH here. There's been so much "both parties are just alike" rhetoric for so long that it makes people who are frustrated try to think outside the box, even if what's outside the box is a rabid weasel with Ebola.

And third parties typically don't help the situation because "both parties are the same, we're your only hope" is pretty much their only selling point (fuck you, Ralph Nader and Jill Stein).