[JLV]

My parents and I don't see eye to eye on politics at this stage of my life.

I will vote, of course. Even if I'm disappointed by the alternatives to Mr. Obama.

[Obdigore]

JLV, on 21 February 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

My parents and I don't see eye to eye on politics at this stage of my life.

I will vote, of course. Even if I'm disappointed by the alternatives to Mr. Obama.

Of course you dont.

Conservatives are about 'protecting what is theirs' and using rose-tinted glasses to remember how great everything used to be.

Progressives are about trying to make the future better for themselves and the people following them, at the cost of those who currently are the 'haves'.

There is some other stuff in there, including a very idiotic religious take over of one party, but there it is.

Edit: How does that quote go? I think it is, 'If as a young person you aren't a democrat you have no heart, but if as an old person you aren't a republican you have no brain.'

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 21 February 2012 - 04:07 AM

[worry]

Correction: conservatives are about love.

[Aptorian]

H.D., on 21 February 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Well, first of all don't pull the "nobody good enough to vote for so I'll sit home" crap that people think is a viable reason. Find a candidate that you can live with and vote for them. They won't have all your beliefs but find the one closest to do them. Picking the person who'll do less harm is not an optimistic reason, but it's a pragmatic one.

And isn't that just a horrible way to run a society?

Here in Denmark we have... 9? or so parties to chose between and I still don't want to vote for a single one of them. I hate the idea that you have to compromise your own idea of standards and morals to vote for the least awful party.

Out of the last 3 elections I've voted blank twice. This last time, because I was so overwhelmingly fed up with the right, I voted for the most aggressively socialist party I could pick just because I wanted the left to win this election. And they did! Then they made an alliance with one of the parties from the right and went back on every single major promise that I supported them for. Fuck them to what every circle of hell lying politicians go to when they die.

I would like a voting option besides Blank that states "I am too disgusted with the current political system to take part in it".

Pick a candidate you can live with? I don't think I could live with myself if I did.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 21 February 2012 - 07:28 AM

[Tapper]

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

H.D., on 21 February 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Well, first of all don't pull the "nobody good enough to vote for so I'll sit home" crap that people think is a viable reason. Find a candidate that you can live with and vote for them. They won't have all your beliefs but find the one closest to do them. Picking the person who'll do less harm is not an optimistic reason, but it's a pragmatic one.

And isn't that just a horrible way to run a society?

Yes but also no. It means you are able to criticize other people's policies and ideas. Whereas if you were to find a candidate who reflects yourself 100%, it is probably because you lack the intelligence/ criticism to see things for what they really are.

Quote

Here in Denmark we have... 9? or so parties to chose between and I still don't want to vote for a single one of them. I hate the idea that you have to compromise your own idea of standards and morals to vote for the least awful party.

Oh, this I agree on. It is both true about the number of parties and the horridness of the idea, but the fact that it is so isn't bad.

Quote

Out of the last 3 elections I've voted blank twice. This last time, because I was so overwhelmingly fed up with the right, I voted for the most aggressively socialist party I could pick just because I wanted the left to win this election. And they did! Then they made an alliance with one of the parties from the right and went back on every single major promise that I supported them for. Fuck them to what every circle of hell lying politicians go to when they die.

I would like a voting option besides Blank that states "I am too disgusted with the current political system to take part in it".

Pick a candidate you can live with? I don't think I could live with myself if I did.

Have you given thought of starting your own group?

[Aptorian]

There's a wonderful party that announced that they were running for the parliament last year but I don't think they ever did (keeping in line with their promises). The Nihilistic Folksparty. I believe they were running on a platform of cynicism. They proclaimed that nothing really matters except cute animals. Politics are meaningles, all they are a empty promises and emotional manipulation. Civilization as we know it is a failure. If elected they promised to not uphold any of their promises.

I quite like those guys.

[Tapper]

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

There's a wonderful party that announced that they were running for the parliament last year but I don't think they ever did (keeping in line with their promises). The Nihilistic Folksparty. I believe they were running on a platform of cynicism. They proclaimed that nothing really matters except cute animals. Politics are meaningles, all they are a empty promises and emotional manipulation. Civilization as we know it is a failure. If elected they promised to not uphold any of their promises.

I quite like those guys.

Sounds what a couple of comedians did here in the 1980s: The Simplistic Union. Would have been the second largest party in the parlement, too.

[Shinrei]

THIRD PARTY?

http://money.cnn.com...tm?iid=HP_River

A choice bit, basically reflecting what I said in the geopolitical thread:

Quote

Walker said he wasn't very impressed with President Obama's latest budget proposal, calling it "inadequate." But he does give the president credit for drawing a distinction between short-term deficits and the long-run structural problems the country faces.

Still the president's plan doesn't go far enough. "We are still running deficits of $700 billion 10 years from now," Walker said.

At the same time, Walker said "Republicans haven't developed [a credible plan] either."
America's Choice 2012

Specifically, Republicans need to acknowledge that adding revenue to federal coffers is essential to bringing down the deficit. Walker said the country needs roughly $1 dollar in additional revenue for ever $3 in spending cuts.

Quote

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- In the not-so-distant past, a crusading third-party presidential candidate ran a grass-roots, national campaign on a platform of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.

That candidate's name was Ross Perot, and in 1992 he captured 19% of the popular vote, and at one point even found himself atop the national horse-race polls.

Is America ready for another Perot?

David Walker thinks so.

A former comptroller general of the United States, Walker released a statement Monday saying that 20 years after Perot became a candidate, there are "striking comparisons between the state of the country in 1992 and today."

"I know there is a hunger for it," he told CNNMoney on Monday.

Walker -- who has toured the country for years harping on a message of fiscal responsibility -- believes it will happen.

"It's clear there will be a third option," Walker said, citing the influence of Americans Elect, a new group that is raising money to put a third-party challenger on the ballot in all 50 states.

"If you look at the conditions and compare them to 20 years ago, we are demonstrably worse off, and the degree of public discontent is greater," Walker said.

And is Walker, who has been floated by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman as a potential candidate, the right person to jump in the race?

Walker told CNNMoney on Monday that "there are people who are trying to draft me to run" and "they can do what they want."

"But I'm not a candidate at the present time and don't expect to be a candidate," he said.

If he were to run, Walker would bring budget wonk credentials that can be matched by few. That's because he was warning about exploding deficits and long-term debt problems way before it was cool.

"We suffer from a fiscal cancer," Walker told 60 Minutes in 2007. "It is growing within us, and if we don't treat it, it could have catastrophic consequences for our country."

Since then, the national debt has ballooned to $15 trillion, and little has been done to curb the rising costs of health care and federal entitlement spending.

Walker said he wasn't very impressed with President Obama's latest budget proposal, calling it "inadequate." But he does give the president credit for drawing a distinction between short-term deficits and the long-run structural problems the country faces.

Still the president's plan doesn't go far enough. "We are still running deficits of $700 billion 10 years from now," Walker said.

At the same time, Walker said "Republicans haven't developed [a credible plan] either."
America's Choice 2012

Specifically, Republicans need to acknowledge that adding revenue to federal coffers is essential to bringing down the deficit. Walker said the country needs roughly $1 dollar in additional revenue for ever $3 in spending cuts.

The additional revenue should come as part of a plan that reforms the overly complicated tax code.

Walker gave few details on what he would do specifically to help bring down runaway deficits, but he did say that the hyper-partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill was acting as an impediment to good legislation.

"I don't advocate a specific reform proposal because in the end you have to consider good ideas from multiple sources," Walker said.

Policy aside, Walker does appear to be right about a hunger existing for a third-party candidate.

According a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last month, 46% of Americans said they would consider voting for an independent third-party candidate they agreed with on the issues.

An additional 22% said they would "definitely" vote for such a candidate.

That's a lot of votes. And if Friedman has his way, some could be going to Walker -- who already has something of a ready-made message:

"A lot of people are talking about the problems, but not a lot of people are talking about solutions," Walker said Monday. "I focus on three things: truth, leadership and solutions. And those are the three biggest deficits that we have." To top of page

[Obdigore]

Might be nice, but I honestly think the Electoral College needs to go away before any third party candidate has a shot at winning the presidency.

[D'iversify]

Obdigore, on 21 February 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

JLV, on 21 February 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

My parents and I don't see eye to eye on politics at this stage of my life.

I will vote, of course. Even if I'm disappointed by the alternatives to Mr. Obama.

Of course you dont.

Conservatives are about 'protecting what is theirs' and using rose-tinted glasses to remember how great everything used to be.

Progressives are about trying to make the future better for themselves and the people following them, at the cost of those who currently are the 'haves'.

There is some other stuff in there, including a very idiotic religious take over of one party, but there it is.

Edit: How does that quote go? I think it is, 'If as a young person you aren't a democrat you have no heart, but if as an old person you aren't a republican you have no brain.'

I think the original is 'socialist' and 'conservative' but I may be wrong. Though given the Democrats are essentially conservative if compared with European parties and the Republicans edging into far right territory (particularly the lunatic fringe who're now ascendant), I'm not sure to what degree this nostrum applies. Of course, you can argue you can't compare European and American conservatism, but then I'm not sure to what degree you can call the current Repuclican party, compared to the Democrats, a 'partyu of the brain' as opposed to a 'party of the heart'.

[Mezla PigDog]

The only thing I know about the GOP candidates this time around (apart from them being mental) is that if you Google "Santorum" the top hit is because a Gay Rights activist wanted to attach his name to "a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head".

I do kind of want to live in a world where the American President is called Newt, if only for a nanosecond.

[Obdigore]

Mezla PigDog, on 21 February 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

The only thing I know about the GOP candidates this time around (apart from them being mental) is that if you Google "Santorum" the top hit is because a Gay Rights activist wanted to attach his name to "a sex act that would make his big, white teeth fall out of his big, empty head".

I do kind of want to live in a world where the American President is called Newt, if only for a nanosecond.

You mean the 'Family Values' president who leaves women when they get debilitating diseases like MS and Cancer? Yea no thanks.

And that was not the top hit for Santorum on google until Mr Icky-Froth tried to sue google to make them change their results so it could never come up.

[McLovin]

I think we should build a border fence around the uterus.

[cerveza_fiesta]

JLV, on 21 February 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

My parents and I don't see eye to eye on politics at this stage of my life.

I will vote, of course. Even if I'm disappointed by the alternatives to Mr. Obama.

Good on you for participating in the democratic process. Everybody has their opinion but I certainly echo the aforementioned sentiments on the "sit at home" approach. Even if you are a democrat sitting in the reddest of red states, or a republican sitting in the bluest of blue states, or something else sitting in either, realize that your vote matters on some level. At the very least it shows your peer group that you care enough to vote and it encourages them to do the same. Apathy feeds apathy and enthusiasm feeds enthusiasm.

This is my thought process when it comes to election time:

I find (even at 30yrs old) after having participated in a few elections, I have a very hard time deciding based on key issues alone. Half the time the politicians don't keep their promises, and half of what's left are clever PR spins, and the rest change year-to-year. I am also mature enough to realize my vote for a local representative (member of parliament in Canada) is a vote for their party's leader with respect to the major decisions...so I am compelled to vote with core party values. Here we have conservative, liberal, new democrat, green and bloc quebecois parties. The conservatives represent our version of the right, and the other four split the left, with the last having MPs only in a single province.

I place a lot of value on a free and democratic society, with a secular government that provides equal opportunity and treatment for all. I also am a scientifically minded person that believes in looking at data from our own country and others and making intelligent policy decisions based on fact rather than some invented platform designed to win votes.

The conservative party is better at pandering to my fiscal sensibilities, but they are rife with religious bigots, wilfully ignore data in favour of their platforms and fall very short on what I value most. The bloc quebecois shouldn't be a federal party at all in my opinion and they don't have an MP here so I can't vote for them anyway. That leaves the NDP, Liberal and Green. NDP policy is far too socialist IMO and there is no way they can run the government they propose with the tax income they currently have. I worry the Green party will place too much emphasis on a few issues and ignore the running of the country entirely. That leaves the liberal most closely aligned with my views. Even if they aren't wildly popular at the moment, they have experience running the country and have not seriously let me down in terms of my core values.

Anyway, I guess the message is to think about what you value, picture the type of country that matches your ideals and vote with the party that seems to be moving in that direction. It's the best you can do.

[D'rek]

Tapper, on 21 February 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Here in Denmark we have... 9? or so parties to chose between and I still don't want to vote for a single one of them. I hate the idea that you have to compromise your own idea of standards and morals to vote for the least awful party.

Oh, this I agree on. It is both true about the number of parties and the horridness of the idea, but the fact that it is so isn't bad.

I've always hated the idea that every political party/candidate has to choose a side on every single issue in order to be a serious contender. Why can't parties have several core opinions that make up their mandate, that they campaign on changing/improving, and that they will keep their promises on above all, and then actually use national census data and the occasional referendum to decide which way the majority of people they represent lean on issues that aren't part of their core mandate? Instead every election every party ends up having positions on a few issues that I agree with and a ton of positions I detest...

[Darkwatch]

They're all puppets of the Reptilian Regime.

[Primateus]

Darkwatch, on 22 February 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

They're all puppets of the Reptilian Regime.

what. the. fuck?

[cerveza_fiesta]

The jagged teeth, the reptilian eyes, the nose....the control device above the nose.

Oh, and that long tongue. Look at this evil thing in the back of Obama's head!

THIS IS OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.

This is serious stuff. PRAY FOR OUR PRESIDENT!

.....................

How could we all have been so blind?

But seriously. When you think about it, what better disincentive to vote, knowing that this woman's ballot counts for just as much as your own. Anbody thinking of abstaining, just don't watch the video. Please.

[Mentalist]

Aptorius, on 21 February 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

H.D., on 21 February 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

Well, first of all don't pull the "nobody good enough to vote for so I'll sit home" crap that people think is a viable reason. Find a candidate that you can live with and vote for them. They won't have all your beliefs but find the one closest to do them. Picking the person who'll do less harm is not an optimistic reason, but it's a pragmatic one.

And isn't that just a horrible way to run a society?

Here in Denmark we have... 9? or so parties to chose between and I still don't want to vote for a single one of them. I hate the idea that you have to compromise your own idea of standards and morals to vote for the least awful party.

Out of the last 3 elections I've voted blank twice. This last time, because I was so overwhelmingly fed up with the right, I voted for the most aggressively socialist party I could pick just because I wanted the left to win this election. And they did! Then they made an alliance with one of the parties from the right and went back on every single major promise that I supported them for. Fuck them to what every circle of hell lying politicians go to when they die.

I would like a voting option besides Blank that states "I am too disgusted with the current political system to take part in it".

Pick a candidate you can live with? I don't think I could live with myself if I did.

do Western countries not have a "I'm against all candidates" option?

back home that's certainly an option, about 4% of voters in every UA election i've followed do that.

[amphibian]

Well, what problem does having a "I'm against all candidates" option actually solve?

To negate all present options without reason supplied is useless. It doesn't provide any meaningful feedback beyond a two year old's obstinate "No! I'm not eating vegetables!".