The US National Debt

Actually, in comparisson to America, our Conservatives are Democrats and our Labour is (or used to be) a bunch of left-wing fanatics.

And it's more our BNP that you can compare the Republicans to.

That's the problem with a two-party system.

TheHermit wrote:

It's been my pet hypothesis that the Republican party left "conservatism" behind some time ago and are currently trafficking in out-and-out fascism.

I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh thinks the Left-wing left "Liberalism" for Out-and-out Socialism. About the time of the Goldwater elections IIRC.
That's right, You're more similar than you thought.
*Rips mask off, revealing the brutal facemask of Darth Limbaugh*
Join Me, only together can we put an end to this pointless conflict.
We will destroy the emperor and rule the galaxy, father and....child whose gender I do not know!
:lolinsane:

TheHermit also wrote:

I don't know shit about political theory or psychology so I'm not sure how accurate that is, but the number of authoritarian traits visible in mainstream Republicans today is highly disconcerting.

I should also point out that research comes before making a hypothesis. What you have actually made is an ass-pull of Godwin

unskilled78 wrote:

I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh thinks the Left-wing left "Liberalism" for Out-and-out Socialism.

If you're trying to continue your "liberals are as bad as conservatives" spiel, the word you need is "Communism". You'd still be wrong, since most liberals in the US are not authoritarian, but your argument would at least be consistent. Hint: Socialism, despite the claims of the "liberal media", is a good thing.

Quote :

I should also point out that research comes before making a hypothesis. What you have actually made is an ass-pull of Godwin

This. This right here is the pro-est click I will likely ever produce. Maybe after you read it (beware, it's a fairly substantial read) then you will understand where I come from when I say "I feel the Republican party is perilously close to fascism, if not there already, but as I have done little research on my own I am not confident enough to say it without qualifiers".

Kari Izumi wrote:

Republicans base finances on a "borrow and spend" policy: the Democrats on "Tax and spend." There's a common link in both ideologies that's full of fail, and it's not having "D" or "R" next to a politician's name. <_<

Really? What is it? Because I don't see it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Psy-4 wrote:

Kari Izumi wrote:

Republicans base finances on a "borrow and spend" policy: the Democrats on "Tax and spend." There's a common link in both ideologies that's full of fail, and it's not having "D" or "R" next to a politician's name. <_<

Really? What is it? Because I don't see it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oh, but the Republican Congress forced Bill Clinton to rein in spending! (Not sure why they didn't do diddly-squat to rein in Dangermonkey, too...)

Fox and MSNBC equal yet opposite? I seemed to have missed the announcement that Fox was giving a liberal his own three hour morning show, the way MSNBC has one hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough.

TheHermit wrote:

unskilled78 wrote:

I'm pretty sure Rush Limbaugh thinks the Left-wing left "Liberalism" for Out-and-out Socialism.

If you're trying to continue your "liberals are as bad as conservatives" spiel, the word you need is "Communism". You'd still be wrong, since most liberals in the US are not authoritarian, but your argument would at least be consistent. Hint: Socialism, despite the claims of the "liberal media", is a good thing.

Quote :

I should also point out that research comes before making a hypothesis. What you have actually made is an ass-pull of Godwin

This. This right here is the pro-est click I will likely ever produce. Maybe after you read it (beware, it's a fairly substantial read) then you will understand where I come from when I say "I feel the Republican party is perilously close to fascism, if not there already, but as I have done little research on my own I am not confident enough to say it without qualifiers".

Great link. Thanks.

As to Republicans being conservative or not...my maternal grandfather was a life-long Republican (or at least since he reached voting age in 1945). He was definitely conservative, and we disagreed on many things, but he wasn't batshit or a conspiracy theorist--he was firmly rooted in reality. He voted Republican in every presidential election from 1948 onward, and even defended Nixon ("He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard!") But when it came time to vote in the last presidential election before he died, the 2004 election, he could not bring himself to vote for Bush (he still voted Republican, but he did a write-in). It hurt him that the party he had been a part of for so many years had become something he no longer recognized--it no longer stood for fiscal conservatism, or pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, but instead had been hijacked by the religious right and the very rich. There was nothing left for moderate conservatives like him.

As for me, I look at our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, and our last, George W. Bush, and I just go WTF HAPPENED?! (I am so glad I'm a liberal, and also glad that the Democrats have not been hijacked by the ultra-left-wing nutjobs--yes, they do exist; you can find them complaining about how everyone is conspiring against them on the Alternet forums.)

Psy-4 wrote:

Kari Izumi wrote:

Republicans base finances on a "borrow and spend" policy: the Democrats on "Tax and spend." There's a common link in both ideologies that's full of fail, and it's not having "D" or "R" next to a politician's name. <_<

Really? What is it? Because I don't see it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I see your chart and raise you one youtube video:



If Bush was spending too much, Obama is definitely spending too much, and yet no one seems to want to call him out on it. At least when Bush was in office, I knew what shitty and hopeless endeavors he was assfucking us out of.

Quote :

As for me, I look at our first Republican
president, Abraham Lincoln, and our last, George W. Bush, and I just go
WTF HAPPENED?!

Civil rights happened. From what I've grasped in history class, Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil rights act into law, pissing off many Dixiecrats in the South who kneejerked and started voting Republican in record numbers.

That at least explains the racial and to a lesser extent the religious nuts that the Republicans have running the place. Dunno how we ended up with folks like GWB that started tossing money around like it grew on trees, though.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Actually, in comparisson to America, our Conservatives are Democrats and our Labour is (or used to be) a bunch of left-wing fanatics.

And it's more our BNP that you can compare the Republicans to.

That's the problem with a two-party system.

There's also the problem of this mentality in America (and maybe in other countries where two-party systems are the norm) that a third party vote is a wasted vote. I say if a third party candidate got even ten percent of the vote in the next election, it'll hopefully give both parties on Congress a wake-up call that yes, the people you represent aren't all stupid sheep and hopefully some of them might actually start listening to the interests of the people they serve.

Kari Izumi wrote:

There's also the problem of this mentality in America (and maybe in other countries where two-party systems are the norm) that a third party vote is a wasted vote. I say if a third party candidate got even ten percent of the vote in the next election, it'll hopefully give both parties on Congress a wake-up call that yes, the people you represent aren't all stupid sheep and hopefully some of them might actually start listening to the interests of the people they serve.

I never understood this idea of a 'wasted vote'. Do you win some kind of prize if you vote for the guy who wins? Or are people really, really into having bragging rights?

Sloth wrote:

Kari Izumi wrote:

There's also the problem of this mentality in America (and maybe in other countries where two-party systems are the norm) that a third party vote is a wasted vote. I say if a third party candidate got even ten percent of the vote in the next election, it'll hopefully give both parties on Congress a wake-up call that yes, the people you represent aren't all stupid sheep and hopefully some of them might actually start listening to the interests of the people they serve.

I never understood this idea of a 'wasted vote'. Do you win some kind of prize if you vote for the guy who wins? Or are people really, really into having bragging rights?

I imagine it's something along the lines of "Why add extra strain to the hardware (& waste my own time) if my vote is not going to make a difference?"

unskilled78 wrote:

I imagine it's something along the lines of "Why add extra strain to the hardware (& waste my own time) if my vote is not going to make a difference?"

So your vote makes more of a difference somehow if the guy you vote for happens to win?

Your vote makes more of a difference if you use it than if you don't use it.

One vote alone doesn't usually decide an election (though in some cases, especially small, local elections, it comes pretty close). The power of voting is that many people use it to speak their minds, thus making things happen. It's much like forming a union...one person complaining about the boss being an asshole doesn't get anywhere (except maybe fired), but when many people get together, they start to get some power.

Sloth wrote:

I never understood this idea of a 'wasted vote'. Do you win some kind of prize if you vote for the guy who wins? Or are people really, really into having bragging rights?

Dunno how your system works in detail, but here a party has to get more than 5% to get seats- which means that every vote for a party that doesn't make it benefits the parties that do. Because then the seats are determined by fewer votes (total votes minus the ones for the minor parties), meaning a party needs fewer absolute votes to get a higher percentage of the seats.

Then there is also the issue if your favorite is cadidate A (third party) > B > C, then your best strategy would actually be voting for candidate B because voting for A won't achieve anything and you should do your best to prevent your least favorite from winning.

grmblfjx wrote:

Sloth wrote:

I never understood this idea of a 'wasted vote'. Do you win some kind of prize if you vote for the guy who wins? Or are people really, really into having bragging rights?

Dunno how your system works in detail, but here a party has to get more than 5% to get seats- which means that every vote for a party that doesn't make it benefits the parties that do. Because then the seats are determined by fewer votes (total votes minus the ones for the minor parties), meaning a party needs fewer absolute votes to get a higher percentage of the seats.

Then there is also the issue if your favorite is cadidate A (third party) > B > C, then your best strategy would actually be voting for candidate B because voting for A won't achieve anything and you should do your best to prevent your least favorite from winning.

While I love that idea when applied to European countries, I'd be horrified to see what kind of parties would crawl out of the Bible Belt if that were ever instituted here.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Your vote makes more of a difference if you use it than if you don't use it.

Holy fuck, I never thought I'd see the day that a Harley Quinn post makes sense! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

*looks out the windows as the pigs fly by*

But in America, we have the electoral college system where each state is given a certain amount of votes according to population but with two exceptions, the system is a winner takes all system. In other words, if California for example has 55 electoral votes and 29 of them are Democrat, all fifty-five go to the Democratic candidate. If you live in a state that is 99 percent likely to vote one way or the other, your vote probably isn't going to be missed if you stay home.

That's what people who are constantly kvetching about the lack of a viable third party in America miss: The word "viable". The two strongest "alternative" parties in this country are the Libertarians and the Green Party - which most people consider the Republicans and Democracts respectively, with a double-dose of wingnut at the top.

Now consider the strongest third-party candidate in the twentieth century was Ross Perot, for whom the phrase "crazy old uncle" was associated with more than a few times.

People want a third party, how about trotting out some candidates that don't make Sarah Palin look informed and reasonable.

Kari Izumi wrote:

But in America, we have the electoral college system where each state is given a certain amount of votes according to population but with two exceptions, the system is a winner takes all system. In other words, if California for example has 55 electoral votes and 29 of them are Democrat, all fifty-five go to the Democratic candidate. If you live in a state that is 99 percent likely to vote one way or the other, your vote probably isn't going to be missed if you stay home.

I won't try to change your mind or debate the issue. I'll simply say "Don't vote, don't bitch."

Freezer wrote:

People want a third party, how about trotting out some candidates that don't make Sarah Palin look informed and reasonable.

Even if there were, would anyone look past the lack of "D" or "R" by his/her name?

IA we need a party that is more for the moderates, which I imagine is where the vast majority of American lie politically, anyway.

Kari Izumi wrote:

Freezer wrote:

People want a third party, how about trotting out some candidates that don't make Sarah Palin look informed and reasonable.

Even if there were, would anyone look past the lack of "D" or "R" by his/her name?

Bit of a chicken/egg situation, wouldn't you say?

Sloth wrote:

unskilled78 wrote:

I imagine it's something along the lines of "Why add extra strain to the hardware (& waste my own time) if my vote is not going to make a difference?"

So your vote makes more of a difference somehow if the guy you vote for happens to win?

Well, it's no fun if you don't get to personally decide who gets elected, now, is it? So of COURSE every vote is a waste, because the election will be decided one way or the other WITHOUT your personal input. So if you're a narcissistic asshole you'll never vote because playing with yourself is a better use of your time.

Obviously I don't understand fully how the American voting system works, but the more you tell people it's a waste of time to vote, the less people vote.

And it's the moderate people who give up their vote first, so then the fanatics win.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Obviously I don't understand fully how the American voting system works, but the more you tell people it's a waste of time to vote, the less people vote.

And it's the moderate people who give up their vote first, so then the fanatics win.

Basically, in any election, there's a small number of people that actually determine the outcome, as explained to me by a campaign manager.

First, you have loyal party voters, or on the issue of propositions, referendums and the like, people who've already made up their mind where they stand on an issue. They vote reliably either way. Campaigns are only really concerned with making sure they show up, but they don't work too hard on them.

The next are the people who are loyal to the other party, or whoever's against you. Don't bother wasting your time trying to swing them over to you.

Between these two types you usually have your 50/50 balance, give or take 5-15 percent.

Then there are the apathetic types who just aren't gonna vote. They're worthless. Fuck 'em.

The last, and most important group, are the so-called "swing" voters. Swing voters may or may not vote. They usually do, though. Best of all, they're not necessarily committed to any particular side. This can be because they're critically analyzing the issue, or because they're stupid and wishy-washy. Either way, you need to encourage these people to come out and vote for your guy, because they're the ones who're going to push it over the edge, one way or the other.

(In the case of Presidential elections, it's a bit more complicated, but I'll leave the electoral college and all that side because when you get right down to it, the President is one dude, and one election, every 4 years.)