Print

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

[Powder Miner]

Nadaka, you just made the libertarian in me curl up into a ball and try to kill itself.

First: Well I'm not for enhanced interrogation myself, but moving on.
Second: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT?
Third: Right-wingers aren't fascist... it's not factually rooted and is really made up to make us look bad... Indeed fascism promotes more power for the government, something right-wingers like me staunchly oppose.
Fourth: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT? HOW COULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT?

ChairmanPoo, you too.

First of all, there are more than two choices- we get to choose people in the primary.

And then you have to consider congress. and the fact that there are actual changes in the government... * facepalm*
Second: THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AR EIN NO WAY SIMILAR OBAMA IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO RIGHT-WING AAAAAAAARGH KILL ME NOW.

[Luke_Prowler]

@ChairmanPoo, salmongod: Why don't you two get a room. You can make matching tin foil hats.

Seriously, there is no "plot" to this. No conspericy to keep the people down. The problem is that there's two very different parties who hate each other trying to share the same country, so their's a lot of pulling and everything going no where. It's like saying that people use sports fans as an excuse to riot. There are people like that but they are the the minority, but others want to focus on them as an excuse to hate sports fans.

[SalmonGod]

I'm currently looking and can't find any, but I've seen images before mapping the major figures of u.s. politics on the full political spectrum.  As I recall, there is a clear preference for being positive on the Y axis, towards totalitarianism/fascism.  Most are at least halfway to the top.  There's a much better split on the X axis, though it still leans to the right.  There's many more people to the right of center, a few people on the far right, and no one on the far left.  There's almost no one beneath the y axis, and those who are fall on the right. 

I've also noticed that discussion of left vs right politics in the u.s. focus really really heavily on cultural issues, rather than economic, when that axis is supposed to be mainly economic.

So yes, if the only thing you worry about is cultural issues (mainly concerning religious lifestyle control) with a mild concern for the social safety net, then you may feel like things are stacked a bit against you, but you still have meaningful choices.   For everyone else, things look much much worse.

[SalmonGod]

The problem is that there's two very different parties who hate each other trying to share the same country

They're best friends when it comes to sabotaging third party competition.  The most important televised presidential debates are privately owned by the two major parties, and the security at that event is given instructions to arrest any third party candidate who attempts to gain entrance.

[Andir]

There are other choices... and if everyone that thought there was no choice voted for the other choices... we'd see more choices.

ie: I get tired of all the complaining when there are third parties that I always hear "I'm throwing my vote away!"... I always hear that, but nobody is willing to put their vote where their mouths are.

[SalmonGod]

The problem is that there's two very different parties who hate each other trying to share the same country

They're best friends when it comes to sabotaging third party competition.  The most important televised presidential debates are privately owned by the two major parties, and the security at that event is given instructions to arrest any third party candidate who attempts to gain entrance.

Sources

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

I had lost the link to this video a long time ago, and it was very difficult to find.  Glad to finally have it back.  I think this is the right video, anyway.  I can't watch it to verify right now.

[Duke 2.0]

I'm currently looking and can't find any, but I've seen images before mapping the major figures of u.s. politics on the full political spectrum.  As I recall, there is a clear preference for being positive on the Y axis, towards totalitarianism/fascism.  Most are at least halfway to the top.  There's a much better split on the X axis, though it still leans to the right.  There's many more people to the right of center, a few people on the far right, and no one on the far left.  There's almost no one beneath the y axis, and those who are fall on the right.

Due to the nature of scales it all depends on what your political baseline is. I can't really take these things as entirely accurate unless I know the guy who set the baseline is inhuman.

[Bauglir]

I don't see any need to propose a conspiracy in order to justify the two parties being fundamentally similar but with many differences that are ultimately cosmetic. In pretty much all the cases where the two are similar, it's not because they're particularly malicious or have conspired to keep anybody under their thumbs, it's just that what's in the best interests of the leadership of the party is the same action, regardless of which party they're a member of. Convergent evolution is a handy tool for these sorts of things, I find.

Incidentally, a bit old, but I'm actually thinking Andir's response to the Texas comment was pretty reasonable, given which thread we're in.

As for the "multiple choices" argument. Technically, yes. Practically, no. Between a system that encourages voting against the person you like least instead of voting for the person you like most (this is actually the rational thing to do, if I recall how game theory applies to the situation) and the self-fulfilling prophecy of "Nobody will vote for a 3rd party", it's not going to happen. Those are two separate problems, by the way, though they're related.

Yes, I've voted for 3rd parties before, and it's been fruitless. I'll keep doing it because ultimately my vote matters so little that it's a matter of principle anyway, but there it is.

[ECrownofFire]

I'm currently looking and can't find any, but I've seen images before mapping the major figures of u.s. politics on the full political spectrum.  As I recall, there is a clear preference for being positive on the Y axis, towards totalitarianism/fascism.  Most are at least halfway to the top.  There's a much better split on the X axis, though it still leans to the right.  There's many more people to the right of center, a few people on the far right, and no one on the far left.  There's almost no one beneath the y axis, and those who are fall on the right. 

http://politicalcompass.org/

There's some there, has the senators too. Although I have to say that they're farther apart than they really are... The two parties are so damn similar most of the time.

[ChairmanPoo]

Nadaka, you just made the libertarian in me curl up into a ball and try to kill itself.

First: Well I'm not for enhanced interrogation myself, but moving on. Second: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT? WHAT? Third: Right-wingers aren't fascist... it's not factually rooted and is really made up to make us look bad... Indeed fascism promotes more power for the government, something right-wingers like me staunchly oppose. Fourth: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT? WHAT? HOW COULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT?

...because he has pretty much continued Bush's policies?

Seriously, about the one thing he went through with was the ESC thing (thankfully, particularily after the European court's anal ruling).  The rest? Tax cuts for the wealthy, stepping on whistleblowers, military interventions abroad, secret prisons... it's all the same. As for medicare, Democrat party candidates have been dangling that particular carrot in front of the US public since Clinton, at the very least, yet none of them seem to follow through with it after the elections.

Tl, dr: Obama is very progressive and liberal in his campaign speeches. In practice? Not so much.

ChairmanPoo, you too.

First of all, there are more than two choices- we get to choose people in the primary

.
People out of a very select circle to begin with.

There are other choices... and if everyone that thought there was no choice voted for the other choices... we'd see more choices.

Yeah, but they never get elected, because we are stuck with this fake "lesser evil" dichotomy, and because the system is designed to weed away minority votes. You do have a point in that theorically it could change. I think that's a good reason not to stand on the sidelines

I don't see any need to propose a conspiracy in order to justify the two parties being fundamentally similar but with many differences that are ultimately cosmetic. In pretty much all the cases where the two are similar, it's not because they're particularly malicious or have conspired to keep anybody under their thumbs, it's just that what's in the best interests of the leadership of the party is the same action, regardless of which party they're a member of. Convergent evolution is a handy tool for these sorts of things, I find.

Incidentally, a bit old, but I'm actually thinking Andir's response to the Texas comment was pretty reasonable, given which thread we're in.

As for the "multiple choices" argument. Technically, yes. Practically, no. Between a system that encourages voting against the person you like least instead of voting for the person you like most (this is actually the rational thing to do, if I recall how game theory applies to the situation) and the self-fulfilling prophecy of "Nobody will vote for a 3rd party", it's not going to happen. Those are two separate problems, by the way, though they're related.

Yes, I've voted for 3rd parties before, and it's been fruitless. I'll keep doing it because ultimately my vote matters so little that it's a matter of principle anyway, but there it is.

I agree with you. There is little need for deep running conspiracies (although I bet you can likely find a lot of backroom deals of all sorts). Converging interests will do the trick.

I agree with your closing statement as well. In fact, I've requested to mail my vote in this year election. There is one minoritary parliament member whom opposed the two major parties quite punlically this year, running part of an annoying scheme, and earning their ire. I'm going to support that guy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

At least Romney would most likely not gut Obama's healthcare bill, considering that he made his own in Massachusetts.

Not only did he have his own, but it is both the inspiration for and basically a carbon copy of Obama's health care bill. However, Romney opposed it because he saw it as violating State's Rights, even though it was effectively his own bill getting a federal endorsement.

Second: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT?
Fourth: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT? HOW COULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT?
Second: THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AR EIN NO WAY SIMILAR OBAMA IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO RIGHT-WING AAAAAAAARGH KILL ME NOW.

Described ideology aside, Obama's actions have been fairly right wing. He kept Guantanamo open, extended the Patriot Act, extended the Bush Tax Cuts, doesn't support marriage equality, and is trying to make the Freedom of Information Act useless. He also caved to the right on pretty much everything outside his healthcare bill.

Third: Right-wingers aren't fascist... it's not factually rooted and is really made up to make us look bad... Indeed fascism promotes more power for the government, something right-wingers like me staunchly oppose.

Currently, the right in America wants to tell people who they can marry, and in some cases who they can even be a partner to at all. The right in America supports things like the USA PATRIOT Act, the greatest legal breach of civil liberties since the McCarthy Era. The right supports tort reform, which would make suing corporations all but impossible. The right wants to tell women that they have to be an incubator for nine months, even if an abortion would be better for everyone involved, potential child included. The right wants to go through people's children to check for citizenship status and go on hunts for illegal immigrants through expanding government control over information flow. All of these things take power away from people and gives it to the government. Sorry Powder, but if you want a government with less power over people, the right isn't really a good bet. I won't call the right fascist, but I can't really call it freedom loving either.

[SalmonGod]

I'm currently looking and can't find any, but I've seen images before mapping the major figures of u.s. politics on the full political spectrum.  As I recall, there is a clear preference for being positive on the Y axis, towards totalitarianism/fascism.  Most are at least halfway to the top.  There's a much better split on the X axis, though it still leans to the right.  There's many more people to the right of center, a few people on the far right, and no one on the far left.  There's almost no one beneath the y axis, and those who are fall on the right.

Due to the nature of scales it all depends on what your political baseline is. I can't really take these things as entirely accurate unless I know the guy who set the baseline is inhuman.

I'll have to watch your video a bit later.

Meanwhile, I found one of the mappings I mentioned before.  It's even more extreme than I remember.  It's also about 3 years old.

This one from govtrack is for congressman and senators.  It shows a much better spread on the left-right axis, but note that it doesn't even include the Totalitarian vs Libertarian axis.  Instead, the notes reveal that they've replaced the vertical scale with a "leadership" score, which only indicates rates of co-sponsorship.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, you just made the libertarian in me curl up into a ball and try to kill itself.

I am glad I could help!

First: Well I'm not for enhanced interrogation myself, but moving on.
Second: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT?

Yes. Right wing. Ignore everything he said he wanted in his campaign and look at what he has actually done while in government. Others have pointed some of it out. He is less left leaning than a moderate republican.

Third: Right-wingers aren't fascist... it's not factually rooted and is really made up to make us look bad... Indeed fascism promotes more power for the government, something right-wingers like me staunchly oppose.

Fascism is corporatism mixed with authoritarianism. That is very much right wing.

Fourth: OBAMA? RIGHT-WING?! WHAT?
WHAT? HOW COULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT?

ChairmanPoo, you too.

First of all, there are more than two choices- we get to choose people in the primary.

And then you have to consider congress. and the fact that there are actual changes in the government... * facepalm*
Second: THE DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AR EIN NO WAY SIMILAR OBAMA IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO RIGHT-WING AAAAAAAARGH KILL ME NOW.

The problem is that you failing to be objective in your evaluation of the actual actions and policies enacted by Obama and both political policies.

[MonkeyHead]

Obama = Blair?

Or what I mean by that is...

When in opposition/running for president, its easy to promise the moon on a stick. When in power, implementing change in essentially stagnant systems is tricky. People like the promise of better. But when better turns out to be "change", systems resist change, and then people get pissed off.

[Leafsnail]

I'm currently looking and can't find any, but I've seen images before mapping the major figures of u.s. politics on the full political spectrum.  As I recall, there is a clear preference for being positive on the Y axis, towards totalitarianism/fascism.

Because the graph was made by a libertarian who arbitrarily decided that noone else was libertarian enough for their taste.  I mean a strong believer in animal rights could equally arbitrarily decide that everyone else is too cruel to animals and put them all in the higher part of their diagram (intentionally named to make them look bad).