Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm sick of elections constantly being hijacked by "values" that are pretty much irrelevant in the long run, or better decided on a cultural level anyways.

If I was elected, I'd do everything I could to make good decisions and fight corruption and tighten laws and enforcements in government and financial areas, but for "values" issues? I could honestly give a damn, unless there's some major flaw in the reasoning of a proposed bill, and I'd probably just run a poll and go with whatever it said.

I disagree. In my view of democratic institutions, the ideal of electing leaders is to try and put the most intelligent and ethical people that can be found into temporary positions of power, allowing them to make dynamic decisions that are best for everyone in the society they are running. Even if that means going against the public opinion.

Otherwise we might as well just have direct referendums on everything and not bother with the federal structure at all. Which we could probably actually do with modern computing technology.

[Nadaka]

The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.

No it isn't. It is called a vote of conscience. There are times when a party will not ask its members to hold a particular line, and each representative may choose their personal view. It is RARE between the Democrats and Republicans with their polar approach to nearly every topic. But it is certainly an option, especially so if you go in with a very focused agenda.

[GlyphGryph]

So because they don't take a stance on something, they take a stance on nothing? Your logic is a bit faulty there. I would expect them to take extremely strong stances on certain things.

Oh, I'm sorry, does every candidate need a stance on every issue under the sun? Is that it? Because yeah, I know I certainly want to know where my candidate stands on chocolate vs vanilla and mac vs pc... oh wait, I don't give a shit, and, most likely, neither do they, and that fact doesn't mean they are going to "just abstain on everything."

The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.

How do you figure? By letting the candidates take stands rather than the party, you can get candidates from each area with popular support that still support, primarily, what the party finds important.

[GlyphGryph]

I disagree. In my view of democratic institutions, the ideal of electing leaders is to try and put the most intelligent and ethical people that can be found into temporary positions of power, allowing them to make dynamic decisions that are best for everyone in the society they are running. Even if that means going against the public opinion.

Otherwise we might as well just have direct referendums on everything and not bother with the federal structure at all. Which we could probably actually do with modern computing technology.

Which is why I expressly said it would be done on irrelevant and contentious issues? And focus on actual governing?

Here's the thing - I think society at large should decide where our goals lie, and its a politicians job to figure out the best way to enact that goals - even if the populace is too foolish to realize it. It's similar to a web contract, in many ways. The client (the public) decides what they wants, but finds an expert to handle the execution.

[Criptfeind]

The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.

No it isn't. It is called a vote of conscience. There are times when a party will not ask its members to hold a particular line, and each representative may choose their personal view. It is RARE between the Democrats and Republicans with their polar approach to nearly every topic. But it is certainly an option, especially so if you go in with a very focused agenda.

Okay.

1: Who is this party you speak of as a separate entity?

2: How can that be the majority of views in a party. I don't understand how a party that is mostly that will not tear itself apart.

So because they don't take a stance on something, they take a stance on nothing?

No. Just if they do not take a stance on most things they wont have a stance on most things.

Or if they do take a stance on most things they will have a stance on most things.

You can't have they not take a stance on most things and still have a stance on most things.

Oh, I'm sorry, does every candidate need a stance on every issue under the sun? Is that it? Because yeah, I know I certainly want to know where my candidate stands on chocolate vs vanilla and mac vs pc... oh wait, I don't give a shit, and, most likely, neither do they, and that fact doesn't mean they are going to "just abstain on everything."

No. Only the important things. Try that paragraph with with Choice VS Life and War Vs Peace and come back to me.

The representatives taking a stance on something is no different then the party taking a stance on something.

How do you figure? By letting the candidates take stands rather than the party, you can get candidates from each area with popular support that still support, primarily, what the party finds important.

I feel that would just be ripe for inter party conflicts. I mean. If you agree with a guy on one thing, but find every other view of his repugnant, you are not going to support him. It is a simple as that.

[Phmcw]

While we discuss, the senate make it clear what would happen if you managed to shape it : Ladies and Gentleman we may soon be spared this tedious rhetoric about American freedom. Given that it won't exist in any way or shape.

I find the bit about torture pretty revealing on how they intend to deal with this annoying "occupy" business.

[Nadaka]

While we discuss, the senate make it clear what would happen if you managed to shape it : Ladies and Gentleman we may soon be spared this tedious rhetoric about American freedom. Given that it won't exist in any way or shape.

I find the bit about torture pretty revealing on how they intend to deal with this annoying "occupy" business.

Holy crap

[GlyphGryph]

I feel that would just be ripe for inter party conflicts. I mean. If you agree with a guy on one thing, but find every other view of his repugnant, you are not going to support him. It is a simple as that.

You can support him if you both agree to abstain about the issues you disagree on, can't you? To put them aside for the greater good? To do the thing that, you know, adults manage to do all the time when they disagree about things?

No. Only the important things. Try that paragraph with with Choice VS Life and War Vs Peace and come back to me.

Fine. Oh, I'm sorry, does every candidate need a stance on every issue under the sun? Is that it? Because yeah, I know I certainly want to know where my candidate stands on Choice vs Life... oh wait, I don't give a shit if they are willing to put that aside and work with me and towards the things we do agree on.

And if I lacked this ability, I would be essentially unable to vote for anyone ever under any situation.

You do know there are plenty of people within the Democratic party and Republican party who disagree with other party members very very strongly, right?

[Criptfeind]

Not to the point we are talking about here. If they disagree that strongly they almost always quit and go to a third party or something. Which is working out great.

Also, you seem to think the economic thing that is going on trumps all other concerns put together.

Which... Maybe to you it does. I don't think it does to everyone. If it did, then sure. What you are talking about would work.

[GlyphGryph]

What about as a temporary party thing? A "we're going to get together, institute major reforms, and then we all agree to go our own way, no long term commitment - just putting other issues aside for the moment to accomplish this very important goal than can only be accomplished with us all working together" party?

[Criptfeind]

Uhh... Maybe? I think the issues would have to get worse to see even that level of cooperation. And there would have to be a level of trust. But maybe?

But at that point I would rather it stay as a 'movement' and change the party lines on this one issue rather then try to start a new party.

[Nadaka]

Uhh... Maybe? I think the issues would have to get worse to see even that level of cooperation. And there would have to be a level of trust. But maybe?

But at that point I would rather it stay as a 'movement' and change the party lines on this one issue rather then try to start a new party.

That would be nice and the fascist authoritarian police state movement for plutocracy has been fantastically successful in using exactly that methodology in both parties.

[Virex]

What about as a temporary party thing? A "we're going to get together, institute major reforms, and then we all agree to go our own way, no long term commitment - just putting other issues aside for the moment to accomplish this very important goal than can only be accomplished with us all working together" party?

Sounds too Scandinavian to ever happen in the US. Besides, you can't get a minority cabinet (which is what is usually behind these kinds of cooperation) in a two-party system. (Then again, that's a cabinet, not a single party)

[Truean]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/30/378370/anti-gay-russian-lawmaker-the-issue-of-same-sex-love-is-somewhat-like-the-jewish-problem/

"Gays are somewhat like the Jewish Problem...." I am disappointed. In Soviet Russia, bigotry has you....

Being a lawyer, I know lots of Jews. They are not a problem (with some select individuals as exceptions who are jerks) and mostly great.

[kaijyuu]

Holy shit, that's even more anti-semitic than homophobic.

EDIT: Or maybe about the same, re-reading the wording. Still, that's really, really disgusting.