BF2S Forums New Libertarian In Duh House

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

No, but it would allow more positions to be heard and debated.  Right now we have the big-government, opinion-over-facts Democrats offering the alternative to the big-government, do-things-my-way Republicans...some choice, eh?

I didn't say it was a good choice, but these parties have developed over time by winning popular support. If you have any faith in democracy at all, then these parties are the best choices. Maybe not the best candidates themselves, but the parties and their value systems have come out on top.

How can you actually say that without knowing what the alternative is like ?

A true democracy is open for change and will let every voice be heard, holding on to one system just because that's the way it always have been is to be narrow sighted ...

You completely missed my post.

Change is made through popular opinion expressed in votes. These parties have survived for as long as they have and are crushing these third parties because they get the votes. If they people were truly unhappy, they would stop voting for these parties.

Ideally, a functioning democratic republic would have no parties whatsoever and people would vote for individuals instead.

Varegg wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

How can you actually say that without knowing what the alternative is like ?

A true democracy is open for change and will let every voice be heard, holding on to one system just because that's the way it always have been is to be narrow sighted ...

You completely missed my post.

Change is made through popular opinion expressed in votes. These parties have survived for as long as they have and are crushing these third parties because they get the votes. If they people were truly unhappy, they would stop voting for these parties.

If they had an alternative they would ... i'm pretty sure both the Dems and Reps does their best to crush such alternatives as soon as they surface, people vote Dem or Rep out of habbit, that's how boring, predictable and meaningless the US elections have been the last 20 years ...

It would have been fun with a social democratic party in the states running a program of European social capitalism - i'm pretty sure they would have gotten a landslide of votes in the current situation

They vote out of habit now because it has worked so well in the past, and it's not that bad now either.

Our two major parties got the popularity they currently hold because they deserve it, and haven't done anything bad enough to lose it.

You underestimate the power of the American people to bitch and moan while still firmly holding to their core beliefs. It's pretty simple really, liberals represent the economically downtrodden and minorities with emphasis on social programs like social security, and conservatives represent the corporate successful, corrupt, and religious right that want to maintain their social and economic status through relative lack of government involvement. It has surprisingly little to do with national debt, or a war over seas, or illegal immigration, it has to do with what party will benefit the voters socioeconomic status the most. Despite what many people are saying about how the parties are becoming more and more similar, they are still significantly differentiated at this crucial core component.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They vote out of habit now because it has worked so well in the past, and it's not that bad now either.

Our two major parties got the popularity they currently hold because they deserve it, and haven't done anything bad enough to lose it.

You underestimate the power of the American people to bitch and moan while still firmly holding to their core beliefs. It's pretty simple really, liberals represent the economically downtrodden and minorities with emphasis on social programs like social security, and conservatives represent the corporate successful, corrupt, and religious right that want to maintain their social and economic status through relative lack of government involvement. It has surprisingly little to do with national debt, or a war over seas, or illegal immigration, it has to do with what party will benefit the voters socioeconomic status the most. Despite what many people are saying about how the parties are becoming more and more similar, they are still significantly differentiated at this crucial core component.

Your description is one that corresponds with the perspective of logical people.  On a federal level, economic policy matters far more than social policy.  Unfortunately, this simple truth eludes the majority of our population, which is why we end up with crazy liberal activists and equally crazy theocons.  These are the kind of people that haven't figured it out yet.

Even segments of the moderate middle behave in the way that Obama suggested about "clinging to guns and religion."  These people tend to be uneducated and easily manipulated by ads due to their prejudices.

So, again, logical people vote mostly according to economic issues, but I'd argue most people don't do that.

Not federal economic or social issues, only so far as they affect the individual. The national debt would be another example of an irrelevant political topic when it comes to votes.

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  The national debt affects all of us, but it's a long term effect.  We're starting to feel its effects in the excessive money supply we've printed and the major deficit spending we're currently doing.

I guess it does lack relevance to the average voter because the average person lacks foresight, but that doesn't make the issue intrinsically worthless.

The average voter is relatively stupid, short-sighted, and uninformed. I base this on the reasoning that there has not been absolute public outrage at the quality of presidential candidates for the past 5 elections.

It's not worthless, it's very important. It just doesn't affect the popular vote any.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  The national debt affects all of us, but it's a long term effect.  We're starting to feel its effects in the excessive money supply we've printed and the major deficit spending we're currently doing.

I guess it does lack relevance to the average voter because the average person lacks foresight, but that doesn't make the issue intrinsically worthless.

The average voter is relatively stupid, short-sighted, and uninformed. I base this on the reasoning that there has not been absolute public outrage at the quality of presidential candidates for the past 5 elections.

It's not worthless, it's very important. It just doesn't affect the popular vote any.

Most are just busy with other things that occupy their life.. like raising kids and working. The average voter doesn't have the luxury of spending time perusing through the blogosphere or network news. For many life revolves around family, not spending time playing politics.

I agree. I was just making sure the line between capability and metal capacity was not being blurred .
_{yea, we have to do that from time to time.}

Kmarion wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I disagree.  The national debt affects all of us, but it's a long term effect.  We're starting to feel its effects in the excessive money supply we've printed and the major deficit spending we're currently doing.

I guess it does lack relevance to the average voter because the average person lacks foresight, but that doesn't make the issue intrinsically worthless.

The average voter is relatively stupid, short-sighted, and uninformed. I base this on the reasoning that there has not been absolute public outrage at the quality of presidential candidates for the past 5 elections.

It's not worthless, it's very important. It just doesn't affect the popular vote any.

Most are just busy with other things that occupy their life.. like raising kids and working. The average voter doesn't have the luxury of spending time perusing through the blogosphere or network news. For many life revolves around family, not spending time playing politics.

Very true.  Still, I believe "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" would be well applied here.  Complacency generally leads to oppression.

I still don't see the problem of having a third, forth or fifth choice ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I still don't see the problem of having a third, forth or fifth choice ...

If the people wanted a third, fourth, or fifth choice, we would have a third, fourth, or fifth choice. We don't want one.

Not with attitudes like this:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Says the man throwing away his vote.

But why are you defending it when...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The average voter is relatively stupid, short-sighted, and uninformed.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They vote out of habit

Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-05-18 08:38:33)

DrunkFace wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I still don't see the problem of having a third, forth or fifth choice ...

If the people wanted a third, fourth, or fifth choice, we would have a third, fourth, or fifth choice. We don't want one.

Not with attitudes like this:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Says the man throwing away his vote.

There is next to no support for the party, so why vote for a candidate that has zero chance of winning when you can help the lesser of the two evils win when they actually have a chance?

I heard something like 3,000 people a year vote for Daffy Duck, are they not wasting their votes? The current libertarian party is equally as humorous.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I still don't see the problem of having a third, forth or fifth choice ...

If the people wanted a third, fourth, or fifth choice, we would have a third, fourth, or fifth choice. We don't want one.

But people do, just not that many.

But hell, everything starts off small. Even Islam/Christianity. Now look, the fuckers have taken control of half the world.

and when enough people are ostracized by the current parties, they will make these third parties grow into something significant. Right now however, they're full of self-absorbed loons proud to call themselves early adopters.

DrunkFace wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If the people wanted a third, fourth, or fifth choice, we would have a third, fourth, or fifth choice. We don't want one.

Not with attitudes like this:

There is next to no support for the party, so why vote for a candidate that has zero chance of winning when you can help the lesser of the two evils win when they actually have a chance?

I heard something like 3,000 people a year vote for Daffy Duck, are they not wasting their votes? The current libertarian party is equally as humorous.

There might be if people didn't use your attitude. How many people would you say think like you so vote for the major 2 when they would/should have voted for a third party? (or just don't vote at all)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and when enough people are ostracized by the current parties, they will make these third parties grow into something significant. Right now however, they're full of self-absorbed loons proud to call themselves early adopters.

I doubt it, and for 1 reason.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

They vote out of habit

The handful of people that actually think about the best candidate for the nation aren't enough to throw the election completely to a third party candidate. They are however numerous enough to influence the vote between the candidates that already have a solid foundation of sheep to stand on.

As Kmarion has pointed out, over a relatively short period of time (less than 250 years) the United States has had its share of failed parties and third parties coming in to take their place. If a serious enough blunder is committed, the party will fall.

Varegg wrote:

I think its very arrogant of you to decide whats best for other people and if there ever is to be a third choise it do have to start of small doesn't it ?

And besides if you are so sure it is doomed to failure what's with all the energy you spend on campaigning against it, by your opinion it have failed already all by itself ...

3000 votes for Daffy Duck just tells me the US is in dire need of another alternative to the ones you have today seeing as they clearly don't fit all US citizens ... your country is the only one in the world where a shrubbery can be elected Mayor, it's time to redo the system if you ask me ...

How am I deciding what is best for other people? I am stating facts, I don't agree with the results. Neither party is particularly appealing to me, but they are what we are stuck with in the absence of a serious fault in a major party, so might as well make the best of it.

It doesn't have to, and usually doesn't start off small. If there is truly a public outcry there will be immediate political ramifications and changing of power, if the shifts are slow over time the major parties will adapt and survive. I point out the role of the Hartford Convention in the death of the Federalist party and Andrew Jackson's radical new political policies that formed the Whig Party.

Why bother posting anything on an internet forum? It's fun and relaxing.

No, it means the U.S. is full of people who don't care enough about our political system to take it seriously. No political system will ever satisfy all the citizens, and thinking otherwise is naive.

Why are you so quick to put down our style of government? It was the first in the world to have a modern non-violent democratic change in power, it has survived a brutal civil war, two world wars, and the Cold War intact. In 225 years we have gone from zilch to a major, if not premiere, world power, successfully updating our Constitution along the way. I don't know how much you can complain.