A few thoughts on current politics

[jordan]

I have come to a few conclusions after reading all these political threads that are currently going. I hope that this thread will not digress to Kerry vs. Bush like they have all seemed to.

 

After a while, I got fed up with everyone saying a million different things about both candidates that are pointless. I am tired of people citing trivial things that appearently proves Kerry hates the country and Bush has to be working for Iraq. I have had many varying oppinions given to me on all of this and I have come up with one thing: social issues are a whole lot easier to debate. This, I feel, is because there seems to be a more clear-cut line with social issues. One person can, for the most part, be right while the other can be wrong. In judging who is a better candidate, that's not always so.

 

 

From post #61 in this thread

SOCIAL ISSUES ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT TO THIS ELECTION AS THE REPUBLICANS MAY PRETEND THEY ARE.

(Though he just happened choose social issues, the quote could have refered to anything.)

 

The point that the quote illustrates is that everyone has different priorities. budellewraagh doesn't think social issues are as important as foreign policy issues, while my dad would say exactly the opposite. Any extremely devout Christian would probably tell you social issues are more important than anything. I know someone else who has a wife and kids and feels that the security of his family and his nation are the most important to him. And you know what, they're all right. To each of them, what they feel is the most important is the most important.

 

So I guess I'm a bit unsure why we all are trying to push our priorities on others. I don't really think it's fair to tell someone that your priorities are more important. I don't think someone in New York City should try to convince someone in rural Whyoming that homeland security is the highest priority. It seems we need to understand that everything from income to location can greatly affect what is "right" for us.

 

Well, I have now hit on a few points and not really gotten anywhere, but I have been wanting to say some of that for a while. As for me, I'm waiting for a debate before I decide who I support.

[budullewraagh]

that was my opinion. i did not force it upon anybody. i am not forcing my faith or beliefs or opinions upon anyone here. i believe that when a government forces their beliefs and faith upon its population, it has stepped beyond its limits

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but you are trying to say that your priorities are right, and theirs aren't.

 

Actually I think that jordan is right. I don't worry about certain things, because they don't affect me and never will. Other things I have to worry about now, since they'll affect me soon. But others, with different needs, will worry about different things and care about certain issues more than others. So can't you just give opinions on ALL of the issues and not try to make some more important than others? An 18-year old voter may not care about social security, but I'm sure that a 78-year old will. So are you, in saying something about social security, hoping that the audience contains old people?

 

I hate politics.

[budullewraagh]

Yes, but you are trying to say that your priorities are right, and theirs aren't.

yes, but i am entitled to my opinion

[Phi for All]

Thanks for the opportunity to step out of the partisan politics inferno, jordan. I actually dislike both party platforms because neither represents me accurately. I think the biggest shame about politics is that there are only seemingly two choices. Do you really think even the people in this forum are split into just two camps? You're right about priorities. Do you think there should be just two sets of priorities?

 

I have been a part of the business world for a number of years now. I sell on a commission-only basis where if I don't work my ass off, I don't eat. I love free enterprise and capitalism, because it gives me a chance to earn more by working harder. I'd hate a job where I made a set amount of money for working a set amount of hours. But this kind of capitalism only works when there is competition from a lot of different players.

 

The larger the corporations grow, the more they stifle this competition. You'd think with technology and emerging workforces making businesses cheaper to run that inflation would slow, wouldn't you? Unfortunately, when the businesses get larger by buying competitors, prices go up because they have to cover the profit lost during the sale. And when a company gets big enough, they can pretty much set their own standards and practices, as well as warp the profit margins so top management makes eight figure incomes. Workers are cowed into submission and stop demanding fair treatment in the workplace for fear of being laid off.

 

Two political parties means fewer people to pay off. You can bet the biggest corporations are hedging their bets and are financing BOTH campaigns this year, especially when the outcome may be close again. The more we argue between the two major parties, the better both the mega-corporations and the politicians like it. They know that there really is no way to be fairly represented by only two parties, and that we are going to settle into opposing camps and bicker.

 

While they make out no matter what the outcome.

 

It stinks. They ought to break the office of President of the United States into 5 positions, all equal, with no Vice-Presidents. Each could represent a demographic or territorial area as well as an area of expertise, that way we could have someone who was strong on Foreign Policy, someone else who understood Economy, or Social issues, Defense, etc. You'd get to vote for the 5 people you thought would most fairly represent you and do the best job in certin areas.

 

If the elections are really going to start getting this close all the time, we are not going to survive it. We will tear ourselves apart at a time when we need the most unity. I love this country and I hate to see it go to the dogs.

[bloodhound]

it seems more and more likely that Bush will be re-elected with each passing second. I really want him to win. altough i dont like him. Weird HUH? Just wanna see what he does. If someone will get a chance to says "I TOLD YOU SO!!"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I agree with a lot of this, except for a few:

 

Thanks for the opportunity to step out of the partisan politics inferno, jordan. I actually dislike both party platforms because neither represents me accurately. I think the biggest shame about politics is that there are only seemingly two choices. Do you really think even the people in this forum are split into just two camps? You're right about priorities. Do you think there should be just two sets of priorities?

No, there can't be. I TOTALLY agree there.

 

Two political parties means fewer people to pay off. You can bet the biggest corporations are hedging their bets and are financing BOTH campaigns this year, especially when the outcome may be close again. The more we argue between the two major parties, the better both the mega-corporations and the politicians like it. They know that there really is no way to be fairly represented by only two parties, and that we are going to settle into opposing camps and bicker.

I hadn't thought of that... Of course, bickering is what politicians do best.

 

It stinks. They ought to break the office of President of the United States into 5 positions, all equal, with no Vice-Presidents. Each could represent a demographic or territorial area as well as an area of expertise, that way we could have someone who was strong on Foreign Policy, someone else who understood Economy, or Social issues, Defense, etc. You'd get to vote for the 5 people you thought would most fairly represent you and do the best job in certin areas.

What happens if there are issues where you can't tell which category it goes in? But the idea sounds good in theory, but still you could end up with people you hate going and doing something in Defense and screwing up the Economy, so the Economy guy gets blamed.

[john5746]

The parties are also trying to sling mud on the other, because this works. People are swayed by mud. Jordan, I too am waiting for the debates, but I am already leaning toward Kerry, so I will try to take off my lenses before I watch.

 

I disagree with more Presidents. I want smaller, more efficient government. I share this with the republican party. I see no need for the Vice President. Maybe if the congress appointed him that might make sense.

 

Yes, everyone has their agendas and their vote. Unfortunately, the effect of your vote depends on where you live. I think the voting process itself needs to be changed to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral process. In this day and age, we should be able to do this.

[Phi for All]

What happens if there are issues where you can't tell which category it goes in? But the idea sounds good in theory, but still you could end up with people you hate going and doing something in Defense and screwing up the Economy, so the Economy guy gets blamed.

Of course there would have to be ways to categorize things, and in gray areas they can put two or more on the same problem. You still may get someone working on one area that doesn't represent your views in that area, but the odds that all five will be people you dislike are pretty small. And wouldn't it be better to get 3 out of 5 or even 1 or 2 than none? As it stands now, HALF the people are unhappy. This can't go on, considering that we don't turn on the politicians, we turn on each other.

 

Again, I only propose this if the elections are going to be split down the middle from now on. This kind of thing doesn't happen very often in history but it's happened twice in a row now.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You realize, of course, if we have more parties then the MAJORITY can hate a candidate and he can still win. You have 3 candidates, and one gets 40% vote, and the others 30 and 30, then he wins, even though most people DON'T want him.

[Phi for All]

The parties are also trying to sling mud on the other, because this works. People are swayed by mud.

Doesn't this make you sick?

 

I disagree with more Presidents. I want smaller, more efficient government.

If the 5 presidents acted more like a cabinet, it wouldn't need to make government bigger. You're right though, we could NOT afford 5 times the staff.

 

I think the voting process itself needs to be changed to a popular vote and get rid of the electoral process. In this day and age, we should be able to do this.

Amen to that.

[5614]

5 presidents would not work as they all have different policies and different views, there would be constant arguements about everything.

[Phi for All]

5 presidents would not work as they all have different policies and different views, there would be constant arguements about everything.

Oh, right. Well, let's stick with what we've got. It's working so well. Forget I said anything.

[jordan]

I think the biggest shame about politics is that there are only seemingly two choices. Do you really think even the people in this forum are split into just two camps? You're right about priorities. Do you think there should be just two sets of priorities?

It seems as though there will be only two whether I like it or not. To try and make three means taking a risk of losing power. One party will have to split into two and risk giving the other an unckecked majority, and I don't believe they would be willing to do that. So, working with only two, you might have to make the call of which fits better. But then again, two would be fine (one would be fine for that matter) if they did a better job of representing their voter's priorities rather than puting such an emphasis on who's paying them. But can you blame them for giving precidence to those who allowed them to get where they are?

You'd get to vote for the 5 people you thought would most fairly represent you and do the best job in certin areas.

This reminds me, I had intended to start a thread to brainstorm some new ideas for electoral processes. While on an airline a while back, I read an article that basicly said our system of voting is the worst and easiest to rig. It talked about a few others that seemed relatively fair. If you have any interest in a thread like that, I might start it with some of the ideas I had.

 

If the elections are really going to start getting this close all the time, we are not going to survive it. We will tear ourselves apart at a time when we need the most unity. I love this country and I hate to see it go to the dogs.

Agreed. Since we're talking about priorities, I have always said that keeping the country together is one of my biggest priorities. I have considered Kerry just because I think he'll disappoint Bush fans, but it don't think it will devide the country as much as if Bush gets re-elected. That's also why I suggest we make the best of the situation in Iraq and just unite and get it over with.

[J'Dona]

You realize, of course, if we have more parties then the MAJORITY can hate a candidate and he can still win. You have 3 candidates, and one gets 40% vote, and the others 30 and 30, then he wins, even though most people DON'T want him.

Well, in the 2000 elections 100 million didn't vote. The popular vote was pretty much 50:50 (slightly more for Gore but Bush won the electoral), so that's 33% of the country in each case who are mostly for one or the other... I wouldn't really call that a majority. Bush won with only 33% of the country in real terms behind him, and Gore lost with only 33% behind him.

 

Even then it's virtually impossible for someone to totally agree with all of a party's policies, in which case that vote is not really a 100% backing. As it is there are only two parties in US politics, so the US democratic system allows for very little leeway and individual preference. At the risk of offending people here, I feel that for this reason the USA has one of the poorer forms of democracy, in terms of choice by the people, because there are only two options, both of which the voter may not agree with, in which case their vote and their opinion is nullified. Call me a communist, but that doesn't seem fair to me!

 

Obviously the UK suffers from the exact same point that Cap'n Refsmmat brings up (that being a result based upon a less than 50% majority). However, those votes are more representative of the people, because - given more options - the population has chosen one which more closely relates to their values and wishes than only two options might; given those options, we find that things are not quite as black and white as a two-party system would suggest. It's also harder to pay off the parties, as Phi for All pointed out.

 

This reminds me, I had intended to start a thread to brainstorm some new ideas for electoral processes. While on an airline a while back, I read an article that basicly said our system of voting is the worst and easiest to rig. It talked about a few others that seemed relatively fair. If you have any interest in a thread like that, I might start it with some of the ideas I had.

I think that would be a very good thread topic. I've personally been thinking a lot about election processes and ways to better represent the people's wishes. Most of my ideas relate to an outlandish no-party system where people vote by mass referendums on the issues so that a majority is always acheived, but it's got issues. I was going to make a thread on it but I haven't time and it's a bit silly, and an open one like yours would be much better.

[Phi for All]

But can you blame them for giving precidence to those who allowed them to get where they are?

No, I can't. We need a quick and easy (Internet) way to be in the pols faces every day like the PACs and lobbyists are. I still believe the money provided by lobbyists for pet projects would be offset by the need to stay in office if the voters were more vocal.

This reminds me, I had intended to start a thread to brainstorm some new ideas for electoral processes. While on an airline a while back, I read an article that basicly said our system of voting is the worst and easiest to rig. It talked about a few others that seemed relatively fair. If you have any interest in a thread like that, I might start it with some of the ideas I had.

Sounds great. Sounds like progress.

Agreed. Since we're talking about priorities' date=' I have always said that keeping the country together is one of my biggest priorities. I have considered Kerry just because I think he'll disappoint Bush fans, but it don't think it will devide the country as much as if Bush gets re-elected. That's also why I suggest we make the best of the situation in Iraq and just unite and get it over with.[/quote']I also think we need to give a little and admit that we overstepped our bounds in our zeal to retalliate for the 9/11 atrocities. Nations make mistakes (especially when attacked) and I don't think it makes us weak to admit that. We don't need to give up more than we already have, but we need to acknowledge to the Iraqi people that we don't think they're all terrorists.

[jordan]

Just for refrence the voting thread is here.

[Skye]

Part of the problem is that if people aren't aware in any detail of the policies the parties have they are then easily swayed by image rather than substance.