deskthority

vivalarevolución wrote:
And just when you don't think it can gets worse, these guys somehow find a way to come up with even worse ideas that make almost no logical sense.

You could live in Kansas:

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edito ... 42187.html

Blaise170 wrote: I dislike both. I hope Sanders, Rubio, or Cruz win. If not I'll vote for Hillary, as Trump will be the worst president in recent memory.

The bad part about this is the fact that many people are leaning the opposite way, just because Hillary is unlikable and a known quantity. We know what we will get with Clinton 2.0. And it will be more of the same. And people are very tired of more of the same. So in that situation, people are saying they'll vote for Trump, because at least it will be something different.

Myself? I'm not sure. It's either no vote, or hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

chuckdee wrote: It's either no vote, or hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

How can anyone take this attitude? A vote not cast is a vote for continued Republican domination.

Why do you think that voter suppression has been a top priority for so long?
Suppression does not just mean photo IDs, psychological suppression is easier and more effective.

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is quite valid, and the down-ballot races are just as important, if not more so.

Why are Republicans evil?

We have had a democratic president for the last 7 years so I dont understand how they are dominant.

Why are photo ID's bad? Do you want illegal immigrants voting?

Obama/The Democrats just proved again that they are Stasi-Hunde:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11 ... tion_sxsw/
So what makes that of people who vote on such evil? They are people who fully deserve to be oppressed, they are begging for it.

fohat wrote:

chuckdee wrote: It's either no vote, or hold my nose and vote for Clinton.

How can anyone take this attitude? A vote not cast is a vote for continued Republican domination.

Why do you think that voter suppression has been a top priority for so long?
Suppression does not just mean photo IDs, psychological suppression is easier and more effective.

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is quite valid, and the down-ballot races are just as important, if not more so.

I don't know how anyone could take this approach, but I don't view Republicans as evil, or bad. Just different. And I don't think that either will be good for the country, so it would be a coin toss, in all honesty. And so, if I personally cannot make a decision, I don't just vote because you have to vote. That's just wrong, IMO. You vote based on your beliefs, information, and opinion- not just because someone tells you that you should vote. That's what's wrong with the system today. Most voters, instead of doing their own due diligence and voting with their conscience and their mind, just follow what others (MSM/commercials) say. Why do you think commercials are such big business? Because they appeal to the least common denominator. And I, for one, am not a member of the least common sheeple.

Although the results skewed Republican, arguably due to the dysfunctional American electoral system and especially to outrageous gerrymandering, the raw numerical votes in 2014 were very close and since the turnout was only 36% that means that 19% of the US voting public was able to get the candidates that they wanted into office.

Voter turnout is 60%-70% even in places like Bangladesh and Afghanistan. What is wrong with Americans?

To me this is shameful and unacceptable, but it certainly reinforces the saying that "People get the government that they deserve." Or, as we said in the 1960s: "Vote, and the choice is yours. Don't vote, and the choice is theirs."

But Fohat, why are photo ID's bad? I do not understand.

fohat wrote: Although the results skewed Republican, arguably due to the dysfunctional American electoral system and especially to outrageous gerrymandering, the raw numerical votes in 2014 were very close and since the turnout was only 36% that means that 19% of the US voting public was able to get the candidates that they wanted into office.

Voter turnout is 60%-70% even in places like Bangladesh and Afghanistan. What is wrong with Americans?

To me this is shameful and unacceptable, but it certainly reinforces the saying that "People get the government that they deserve." Or, as we said in the 1960s: "Vote, and the choice is yours. Don't vote, and the choice is theirs."

I think a lot of the low voter turnout has to do with the utter lack of concern the political system seems to have for the concerns of lower income and middle income Americans, despite the pandering. The United States is essentially an oligarchy. Also, many of us would rather go about our lives than be political active or aware. As long as we entertained, making money, the lights are still on, etc., why care. Your lifestyle isn't threatened, then nothing to worry about. Finally, the winner-take-all voting method makes you feel like your views are represented among the candidates, and you have to choose among the least worst.

From my perspective, the two major parties are both controlled by corporate and wealthy interests, so they cannot take large enough risks that might cause them to lose those supporters. I feel like voting for either of the parties only perpetuates a broken system that benefits the parties that designed the broken system to work in their favor.

Then you have to look at the demographics that tend to vote the least. Generally, the lower income and young vote in less numbers. For the young, it is quite simple, they have other things on their minds rather than being politically active (school, travelling, having fun, chasing tail, being self conscious, getting jobs, becoming established, all the usual activities of youth). Since Obama came to the fore, we have seen a lot more political activism among the young, for reasons I cannot pinpoint here. I suspect the hopeful, humanistic message resonates with the youth, and our diverse young population is excited to see someone else other than an old white man.

For the low income, all you ever receive from politics is a lip service for your vote and maybe a check in the mail if you qualify for a means-tested entitlement program. You know that you are generally getting the same thing regardless of who is running the show. As long as the poor are not rioting, great, no need to pay much attention. The roots of poverty that plague lower income populations and lead to a cycle of poverty, don't receive the same amount of attention. In fact, I'm not sure how much government and politics can do for a lot of the causes of poverty, except provide support and opportunities for the youth to get out of poverty.

Regarding gerrymandering, the districts need to be determined by an independent commission and completely divided by population distribution. The elected representatives should not be determining the districts.

We do get what we deserve. With such little activism and voting against our corrupt and broken system, we will continue to get the same thing.

Redmaus wrote: But Fohat, why are photo ID's bad? I do not understand.

All forms of voter suppression are poisonous to the principles of a free and open society.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitic ... r/3422047/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... sense.html

vivalarevolución wrote:
From my perspective, the two major parties are both controlled by corporate and wealthy interests, so they cannot take large enough risks that might cause them to lose those supporters. I feel like voting for either of the parties only perpetuates a broken system that benefits the parties that designed the broken system to work in their favor.

Can you honestly say that you believe that voting for Democrats "only perpetuates a broken system" AS MUCH AS voting for Republicans does?

This is where the rubber meets the road.

Are you seriously telling us that a vote for Hillary Clinton "only perpetuates a broken system" as much as a vote for Ted Cruz?

Because I believe that anybody who would say that has his head completely up his ass.

fohat wrote: Because I believe that anybody who would say that has his head completely up his ass.

Just because their opinion is different than yours? I might agree on the Ted Cruz opinion, but it is my opinion, and I am as entitled of it as they are of theirs. And I respect them no matter that their opinion is different.

I think that's the major problem with our political system today. Our system was founded on respect and letting others live their lives. For this principle people died. And that principle is largely dead- when applied to people we don't believe in.

fohat wrote:

Redmaus wrote: But Fohat, why are photo ID's bad? I do not understand.

All forms of voter suppression are poisonous to the principles of a free and open society.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitic ... r/3422047/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... sense.html

So requesting photo ID is voter suppression, but making it on Tuesday when people have to work and can't take the time to vote isn't? Many other countries have a national holiday on days of voting, and open the banks to allow people to vote there so that there will be many more voter locations and they can support the masses voting. If our voting % was higher, we'd not be able to handle it. It's been shown with even a marginal increase.

chuckdee wrote:
Just because their opinion is different than yours? I might agree on the Ted Cruz opinion, but it is my opinion, and I am as entitled of it as they are of theirs. And I respect them no matter that their opinion is different.

Our system was founded on respect and letting others live their lives.

For this principle people died. And that principle is largely dead - when applied to people we don't believe in.

So requesting photo ID is voter suppression, but making it on Tuesday when people have to work and can't take the time to vote isn't?

Many other countries have a national holiday on days of voting, and open the banks to allow people to vote there so that there will be many more voter locations and they can support the masses voting. If our voting % was higher, we'd not be able to handle it. It's been shown with even a marginal increase.

First, I do respect your right to have any opinion you wish, but that does not mean that I respect the opinion itself, or the intelligence of the person holding the opinion. That respect has to be earned. Climate deniers can ignore science as much as they wish, but they are still fools or liars, in my opinion, and their inane or disingenuous "beliefs" have no value to me. But perhaps history will prove me wrong instead.

In any case, I am not advocating that anyone be punished or disadvantaged in any way because of whatever beliefs that they may hold. But at the same time, any "belief" that someone presents to you can and should be challenged for its validity. The notion that a false statement gains traction by being repeated many times by many people is why the consolidation of mass media is so dangerous to a free society. People died for the right to have a free press, too, but recently the people of the US have allowed that to evaporate literally in front of their eyes.

Second, the US electoral system is hopelessly broken on every level. What made sense in horse-and-buggy days is utterly inappropriate now and needs to be completely overhauled. However, since "the powers that be" have perfected the art of gaming it to their advantage, they will block any effort to change it. For generations (since the Civil War (with the embarrassing interlude of Jim Crow) up until Bush v Gore) the general fundamental trajectory was that universal voting should be enabled and encouraged. Since 2000, voter suppression has accelerated in earnest, with unconscionable gerrymandering leading the way. I have held a voter registration card for decades and "photo ID" was never a part of the equation until the Bush Jr presidency.

So, to rephrase my direct question yet again, one word answer: Which US political party would be more likely to improve the condition of the citizens of this country in the next 4 years? If you sincerely cannot answer that question, then I agree - you should not vote.

fohat wrote: In any case, I am not advocating that anyone be punished or disadvantaged in any way because of whatever beliefs that they may hold. But at the same time, any "belief" that someone presents to you can and should be challenged for its validity.

This is true, but this is not what you did. I didn't say anything about respect for the ideas. But respect for the person? What part of 'I believe that anybody who would say that has his head completely up his ass' conveys respect? There are other, more intelligent, more respectful, and less inflammatory ways to convey the same thing. And that's one of the major reasons that the aisle can't be crossed. There's no respect there anymore.

fohat wrote: So, to rephrase my direct question yet again, one word answer: Which US political party would be more likely to improve the condition of the citizens of this country in the next 4 years? If you sincerely cannot answer that question, then I agree - you should not vote.

Political Party? Neither. There might be individuals, but I don't vote for parties. To much cronyism on the committees, bullying if the individual politician does anything others don't like, popularity contests, and one of the reasons that no one can reach across the aisle.

It's going to take individuals. Voting the party line is a sucker's bet. There are good people with good ideas and intentions on all sides of US Politics, and politics in general. And there is the inverse. And, as I said, I'm not sure which of the candidates will make things better or worse. It's theater at the current point. You don't really get a feel for what the candidate is really like in a lot of cases until after. It's really run from your base, and govern from the center in most cases. And Trump and Clinton are both running to win, not running to show the American people their bona fides and allow them to choose based on the truth.

fohat wrote:

chuckdee wrote: […] Our system was founded on respect and letting others live their lives. […]

First, I do respect your right to have any opinion you wish, but that does not mean that I respect the opinion itself, or the intelligence of the person holding the opinion. […]

I agree with fohat that the respect in question is not respect for any person, but respect for their rights.
I deeply despise racists, but of course I do not question their right to believe they are superior to anybody else
Wanting me to respect them is as absurd as wanting me to love them.

Yes basic rights such as the right to ones own opinion is a very important fundamental principle. What then often happens when those differentiating opinions clash is not so great but oh well. Seems this thread is becoming "valuable" after all.

fohat wrote:

vivalarevolución wrote:
From my perspective, the two major parties are both controlled by corporate and wealthy interests, so they cannot take large enough risks that might cause them to lose those supporters. I feel like voting for either of the parties only perpetuates a broken system that benefits the parties that designed the broken system to work in their favor.

Can you honestly say that you believe that voting for Democrats "only perpetuates a broken system" AS MUCH AS voting for Republicans does?

This is where the rubber meets the road.

Are you seriously telling us that a vote for Hillary Clinton "only perpetuates a broken system" as much as a vote for Ted Cruz?

Because I believe that anybody who would say that has his head completely up his ass.

Let's try not to resort to personal insults like having my head up my ass. Although if that is where I can find supporting evidence for my claims, I will search within my own ass.

Voting for Democrats that helped design and continue to support this system, yes, I believe it perpetuates the system as much as voting for Republicans. The Republicans have taken a more active role in voter suppression, because they know lower turnout benefits them. But the Democrats are certainly guilty of hassling third party candidates, and I haven't heard much talk of basic measures like eliminating the electoral college or moving Election Day to Saturday or a national holiday to increase accessibility at the polls.

Now that you qualified your question to ask which party is better for the American people, in this cycle, it's obviously the Democrats, in my opinion (although they have their flaws, to be sure). But part of the reason for that is the lifetime Independent/Socialist Bernie Sanders joining the fray and forcing Hillary and the party further to the left. He has certainly introduced a more progressive, humanist, and feel good let's get together vibe to this election. The Republicans have shown they are willing to pander to their traditional base while continuing to ignore large swathes of the population. In reality, you only need to appeal to about 30% of the voting eligible population to win, not half. And even less in a mid term election. That strategy has worked well for awhile now.

In terms of shaking up the current political system, the best major candidates for that are Bernie and The Donald. Whether their respective shakeups would be beneficial, that is completely subjective. But the worst I see from Bernie is higher taxes and expenditures, which is mostly out of his control, that is the realm of Congress. He can't turn this country completely Socialist in four years. The worst of The Donald, well, we don't know because his actions in pursuit of his ego may not have limitations.

vivalarevolución wrote: […] the worst I see from Bernie is higher taxes and expenditures […]

I don't see why higher taxes should be considered per se bad.
People who do not want to pay taxes should not use what taxes are used for, and that's nearly every aspect in modern life.
For example, they should be excluded from using roads, police or street lighting, and they should also be consistent with themselves and refuse to benefit from the law-making processes on which the whole functioning of a country rests, including of course stock market regulations.
And it is only natural that the rich should pay a higher percentage of their income than the poor. After all, while nobody can seriously contend that someone earning $1,000,000 works thousand times as much as someone earning $1000, paying 10% taxes from a $1000 income means you have $900 left while with a 50% taxation of a $1,000,000 income you still have $500,000 (which is still more than 555 times more than the $1000 earner retains).

So if that is "the worst" you see from Bernie, I think that's not that bad.

kbdfr wrote:

fohat wrote:

chuckdee wrote: […] Our system was founded on respect and letting others live their lives. […]

First, I do respect your right to have any opinion you wish, but that does not mean that I respect the opinion itself, or the intelligence of the person holding the opinion. […]

I agree with fohat that the respect in question is not respect for any person, but respect for their rights.
I deeply despise racists, but of course I do not question their right to believe they are superior to anybody else
Wanting me to respect them is as absurd as wanting me to love them.

But that's becoming blurred. Many people are unable to make the distinction between respect for the person and the opinion. And many of those are in office. Using the term evil is a good sign of it. Our government is one of compromise, where there are checks and balances based on the final solution being one brought about by that compromise. But when you see the other side as evil or without merit, then how do you compromise with them?

chuckdee wrote: But that's becoming blurred. Many people are unable to make the distinction between respect for the person and the opinion. And many of those are in office. Using the term evil is a good sign of it. Our government is one of compromise, where there are checks and balances based on the final solution being one brought about by that compromise. But when you see the other side as evil or without merit, then how do you compromise with them?

1+ to this. Very very good point.

chuckdee wrote: But that's becoming blurred. Many people are unable to make the distinction between respect for the person and the opinion. And many of those are in office. Using the term evil is a good sign of it. Our government is one of compromise, where there are checks and balances based on the final solution being one brought about by that compromise. But when you see the other side as evil or without merit, then how do you compromise with them?

Not trying to be an ass or anything, but which people would those be that have evil views and are in office?

vivalarevolución wrote:
Let's try not to resort to personal insults like having my head up my ass.

Voting for Democrats that helped design and continue to support this system, yes, I believe it perpetuates the system as much as voting for Republicans.

Now that you qualified your question to ask which party is better for the American people, in this cycle, it's obviously the Democrats,

The Republicans have shown they are willing to pander to their traditional base while continuing to ignore large swathes of the population.

But the worst I see from Bernie is higher taxes and expenditures, which is mostly out of his control, that is the realm of Congress.

The worst of The Donald, well, we don't know because his actions in pursuit of his ego may not have limitations.

The "head up the ass" comment was out of line and I apologize. And, frankly, I consider you to be one of the more rational and intelligent people in this discussion, which leaves me all the more flummoxed when you equate Democratic and Republican support for "the system".

As to "the system" both Democratic candidates have pledged to overturn Citizens United while pretty much all Republicans (with the partial exception of Trump) both locally and nationally game the system for all it is worth.

The differences between the sides of the current political debate could hardly be more harsh and stark. Aside from the "clown-genius" Trump, the viable alternative is a climate-denier who stated, in public, with a straight face, that "Net neutrality is Obamacare for the internet." Are we living in Bizarro World?

Honestly, I find the "no difference" comments almost as phantasmagorical as the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of Republicans.

Redmaus wrote:

chuckdee wrote: But that's becoming blurred. Many people are unable to make the distinction between respect for the person and the opinion. And many of those are in office. Using the term evil is a good sign of it. Our government is one of compromise, where there are checks and balances based on the final solution being one brought about by that compromise. But when you see the other side as evil or without merit, then how do you compromise with them?

Not trying to be an ass or anything, but which people would those be that have evil views and are in office?

From earlier in the thread:

fohat wrote: But at this point in the history of the world, the Republican Party in the US could not be described as anything short of evil and insane, with a monumental shower of bastards populating their ticket, and pretty much any Democrat is 1,000X better than pretty much any Republican for any position of consequence.

And he's not the only one- just the only one who said it in this thread.

chuckdee wrote:

fohat wrote: But at this point in the history of the world, the Republican Party in the US could not be described as anything short of evil and insane, with a monumental shower of bastards populating their ticket, and pretty much any Democrat is 1,000X better than pretty much any Republican for any position of consequence.

And he's not the only one- just the only one who said it in this thread.

Aside from reading the lines of lunacy that appeared before me, does anyone have a real reason that Republicans are evil?

I cannot seriously believe anyone would prefer the current Democratic candidates, whether that be Bernie or Hillary over a Republican candidate simply because they are Republican.

Redmaus wrote:
I cannot seriously believe anyone would prefer the current Democratic candidates, whether that be Bernie or Hillary over a Republican candidate simply because they are Republican.

Beginning with his tenure in 1995, Newt Gingrich began the policy of demanding absolute allegiance to "the Party" which included not only the platform but also his own instructions and dictates. This practice has continued unabated in the House of Representatives and has spread, to a lesser extent, throughout the Party all over the country. For this reason, the overwhelming majority of "Republican politicians" behave as puppets of the party leadership most of the time. Its resemblance to http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm is eerie.

The Republican platform explicitly states its intent to end Federal college loans, encourage religious discrimination (parading under the cynical misnomer "religious freedom"), make abortion illegal, dismantle the Social Security system, encourage only abstinence-based sex education, eliminate taxing income over $250K, and denying the existence of man-made climate change, just to make a short and incomplete list.

Add to that its unwritten but equally cruel and insidious assaults on the welfare of veterans, women, children, gay people, the elderly, immigrants, and you see a pattern of greed and callousness that could not be described with any positive adjective. Whoever can look at these atrocities and not be appalled must hold a very strange worldview, in my opinion.

So yes, I absolutely stand by my characterization of it as "evil" and no one in this thread has yet attempted to present any defense of the behaviors that I have criticized, or to dispute of the content of my statements, only to complain that my accusations are too harsh. And yes, It is true that I have a great deal of trouble finding anything whatsoever to "respect" about the attitudes or actions of the Republican Party in the US today.

To cite credible 3rd-party opinions, as I usually do, at the end of the first paragraph of this article, no less than "The Guardian" wrote that "US Republican Party stands alone in its rejection of the need to tackle climate change and efforts to become the party of climate supervillains."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ate-denial

Let me reiterate that in your clamor against me, there is a conspicuous absence of facts, quotations, legitimate articles or commentary, historical perspective, or anything of substance to bolster your own opinions. Why don't you produce something besides emotions to lend credibility to your opinions?

I'm sorry this is too good not to post:

A new ad, released by conservative PAC Our Principles, makes a strong case by keeping it simple.

Wow, that's hilarious and awful all at the same time. Such a prick.

scottc wrote: Wow, that's hilarious and awful all at the same time. Such a prick.

Yeah I'd say so, looks like they may be a little late with their efforts.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/our-principles-pac/

fohat wrote:
Beginning with his tenure in 1995, Newt Gingrich began the policy of demanding[...]

[...]Let me reiterate that in your clamor against me, there is a conspicuous absence of facts, quotations, legitimate articles or commentary, historical perspective, or anything of substance to bolster your own opinions. Why don't you produce something besides emotions to lend credibility to your opinions?

As far as being "puppets" to the party leadership I think that applies to most politicians. The Republican has a few idiots like Scott Walker who are flat out zealots but they also have good candidates like Rand Paul.

Your statement has truth to it, but don't write off an entire party for other candidates foolishness. Democrats have a long list of idiotic policies as well.