Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

FortKnox's Journal: Not the same old partisan politics 27

Journal by FortKnox
I said a few weeks ago that I was preparing a political rant. Well, Em stole my thoughts. I was basically sick and tired of everything either being liberal or conservative. I was sick of people that just vote for a democrat/republican for the sole reason that they are democrat/republican. I'm sick of the democrats/republicans making fun of the presidential campaigner/president just because they are republican/democrat.

But I was going to offer a single link as an answer. My political party, the Reform Party. Wait, quit talking about Perot being looney, and read the founding principals. Tell me you don't agree with 90% of them (I'm against taking away the electoral college... its checks and balances). That is why I'm neither liberal nor conservative. I want to be able to look at all the candidates and pick the one based on where they stand, which isn't the democratic stance, or the republican stance, but the stance of the individual person. That way you don't have smear campaigns, but debates and commercials about what the person stands for and what they will do in office.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Not the same old partisan politics

Comments Filter:
  • campaigning, or divide it up among ALL the players.

    Give that poor libertarian Nader a chance to say "I'm Ralph Nader, and I approved this message" right beside the one of Bush saying it.

    It used to be elections were won in the papers and in person.

    Nowadays, elections are won on the tv, and only the richest two (1 dem, 1 rep) can get enough exposure. People are dumb enough to vote for whomever just based on the little bit they hear on the tube....never realizing there's a slant to everything.

    Part of the
    • If I decide I want to be president, do I get equal time with everybody? And lots of money?

      Or maybe you do it like Chretien was setting up in Canada, where you get money proportional to your support? If so, how is it not just going to help the incumbents again?

      I think you're also underestimating the American public. I know that's hard to do - but I think you are. People may not know everything about situations, but lots of people will vote for Bush (and not Nader) because they honestly, truly agree wit
      • Or maybe you do it like Chretien was setting up in Canada, where you get money proportional to your support? If so, how is it not just going to help the incumbents again?

        Oooh...

        For each election, force (yes, abridge the first amendment and FORCE) all monies to be put in one large pool, and then allocate that pool based on total voter party registrations.

        So by selection "green party" when you register to vote, you give the greens one-twohundredfiftymillionth of the election monies.

        Or, alternately, have
    • I've checked out completely. I'll decide on Nov. 1st. In the meantime, I'm not interested in a goddam thing any of them have to say, for the reasons you've indicated.

      Emalb/Butcher '36!

    • Uhm... Ralphie ain't a libertarian...He's very much into regulating like a man possessed.
    • Actually you should first get rid of the collusion between the two major parties that keeps other parties out of the debates.

      I'd love to see the Repubs flich when faced with a "Big L" Libertarian and a Constitution party member(fiscal conservatism/deregulation whackjob meet religious whackjob, well aquanted? Now meet the person who tries to appeal to both), and I'd love to see the Dems flinch when faced with a Green/Socialist.

      It's funny, the vast majority of Republicans I know are fiscally conservative/s
  • I'm against taking away the electoral college... its checks and balances

    I'm against taking it away, too, but it's not 'checks and balances'. ;-)

    "Checks and balances" refers to the separation of powers -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- and the balancing of those powers such that the government can not easily abuse its power.

    The electoral college was just intended to be a way to, on the one hand, strengthen the voice of smaller states, while also adding a mechanism to prevent mob rule or the ga

    • I was using 'checks and balances' in a very liberal sense. I meant that its a harder system to 'fool' than a straight vote. To abuse it, you need to abuse it in like 30 places. So my definition of 'c&b' is diffusing a situation so abuse is required on mutliple tiers... or something like that.
    • Actually, the electoral college's function is to "check" that each sovereign state is represented fairly, and to "balance" the power among the states in a manner that prevents the small states from losing their voices. When you said "The electoral college was just intended to be a way to, on the one hand, strengthen the voice of smaller states, while also adding a mechanism to prevent mob rule or the gaining of power by fringe candidates." you were just saying the same thing without use of a metaphor.

      The
  • So read it there if you want. Like you, I left one of the established 'BIG 2' and joined a sub-party (in my case Libertarian). The key has to be there be ENOUGH of us around the US to make the rest of the parties take stock in what we have to say. All I keep thinking is the only way out of the crap we have now is to start over.
    • All I keep thinking is the only way out of the crap we have now is to start over.

      Yup... stupid tradition and not willing to change public.
      • [TEVYE]
        Tradition, tradition! Tradition!
        Tradition, tradition! Tradition!

        [TEVYE & PAPAS]
        Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
        Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
        And who has the right, as master of the house,
        To have the final word at home?

        The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
        The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

        [GOLDE & MAMAS]
        Who must know the way to make a proper home,
        A quiet home, a kosher home?
        Who must raise the family and run the home,
        So Papa's free to read the holy books?

        The Mama, the
        • Is it sad that my music collection consists mainly of techno, orchestra, and the sounctrack to that movie (the good version with Topol)?
        • New FK JE Rule: You may no longer quote anythign from a musical... EVER!

          (Granted, Fiddler is one I can stand... actually like it quite a bit... for a musical).
        • [The organ starts playing]
          NARRATOR: A shoggoth on the roof. Sounds crazy? No, certifiably insane! But here in our little village of Arkham, Massachussets, you might say every one of us has a shoggoth on the roof -- and I'm not speaking metaphorically. It's not easy having a malevolent shapeless monster like that hanging over your head, but there it is. Arkham is the home of many strange things; a big monster like that on such a pointed roof -- you may ask, how does it stay up there if it's so difficult. T
  • 1. Balanced Budget Amendment:

    I would rather see the country doing what a responsble company does - pay down its debt and put away money for the future while covering its costs. That means more taxes than we absolutely must pay, but it also means having a safety net in the future and, if run properly, the the eventual decrease of taxes.

    2. Term Limits:

    Term limits are like cold medication; they fix the symptoms, not the problem. Term limits are needed only if the boting public isn't aware of what their repr
    • I was gonna rant about the Reform party, but you pretty much hammered all my nails for me.

      To be honest, I've never looked at the Reform party before. Personally, I've got tons of hat for all the political parties; Reform is no different, even now that I've looked at their founding principles.

      There are some *intents* that I agree with: the electoral system is broken and needs fixed. But their fix is no fix. Hell, it's not even a bandaid with some neosporin; it's more like a kiss from mommy that's somehow s
  • While we are on the subject, here are the Ten Key Values of the Green Party [gp.org].:)
  • ...but why do I need to vote for a nut to be a responsible citizen? If I educate myself and vote for policies I support and a person I trust, isn't that more useful than voting for Perot?

    It's an unsettlingly nice feeling to vote for someone you genuinely like and want to see in office. Unfortunately, it's sad how infrequently I get that feeling. John McCain was probably the last time (although in hindsight, I'm liking campaign finance reform less and less). Pre-Iraq and pre-Medicare lunacy, I might have got

  • This is why we only can ever have two (electable) parties, and by necessity they must ascribe to similar values. I read a paper from some Harvard journal about this very thing, but can't find it again.

    One solution is to use AHP [cmu.edu] to pick the President/Congresscritter/etc. In a nutshell, you rank each candidate against every other candidate, by degrees. Suppose you're ranking 1) Clinton v. 2) Dole v. 3) Nader. You compare each combo (1-2, 1-3, 2-3) using one of the following:

    • A is much better than B (9)
    • A is
  • "I want to be able to look at all the candidates and pick the one based on where they stand..."

    You can. No one can stop you from doing this very thing. This is how I have always conducted my own life. What you really want is for it to appear that we are all trusted to do this by the politicians.

    Currently it doesn't seem that way, it seems that all the politicians believe we can be trusted to do is to vote in our own selfish self-interest. So, they appeal to the most powerful of those self-interests

Save energy: Drive a smaller shell.

Working...