US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Bri]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

Depends what you consider the actual duty of a politician is. Is it to get elected, or to be a good statesman? The car salesman tack is unavoidable in modern politics and is thus pretty much necessary if you even want a shot. But is it really a relevant skill in BEING a politician, or does it offer no aid beyond the election?

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

The duty of a used car salesman is to gain maximum profit for himself at any cost to the detriment of everyone else. This is the best way to get elected and then become massively rich by emptying the coffers. But that isn't going to help the country.

The goal of elections is to find the best man for the job. The skills of a used car salesman is used in this case to break the system; the man is the worst person for the job, but he tricks the population into getting him elected anyway. Thus democracy is destroyed.

You're both right off course. Ideally election should find the best man for the job. Yet the requirement to be good at running in elections (and polls) disqualifies so many people who would be infinitely more suited for the job of running a country.

The point I'm trying to make is that con men (the ones that run at least) don't cheat the system, instead the system (mediacracy?) increasingly favours con men to win. Playing the devils advocate: if the goal of elections is to find good statesmen why does it only test them on their skills as crooks?

[Ithekro]

I wonder if this has more to do with Television than simple politics. Or if our view of pre-television politicians is slanted towards not quite so cars saleman-like.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I don't know, which one is he rewarded for?

Obviously elected. Doesn't mean we have to take such a bleak view of the world that the broken mechanism determines the actual duty. I still prefer to be somewhat idealistic, if willing to admit the system doesn't work - especially in the modern age of television and mass media.

[Xellos-_^]

President Obama has called people who work on Wall Street “fat-cat bankers,” and his reelection campaign has sought to harness public frustration with Wall Street. Financial executives retort that the president’s pursuit of financial regulations is punitive and that new rules may be “holding us back.”
But both sides face an inconvenient fact: During Obama’s tenure, Wall Street has roared back, even as the broader economy has struggled.
The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.
Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

Hope and Change people, Hope and Change.

[Ithekro]

Loose Change?

[AnimeFan188]

"He shouldn't have to concede any states for lack of money – and he already has
raised more than his Republican rivals combined."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Loose Change?

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"He shouldn't have to concede any states for lack of money – and he already has
raised more than his Republican rivals combined."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

lots of loose change.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"He shouldn't have to concede any states for lack of money – and he already has
raised more than his Republican rivals combined."

See:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

I thought than the donation for the democrate from Wall Street was lower than last time, no ?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

President Obama has called people who work on Wall Street “fat-cat bankers,” and his reelection campaign has sought to harness public frustration with Wall Street. Financial executives retort that the president’s pursuit of financial regulations is punitive and that new rules may be “holding us back.”
But both sides face an inconvenient fact: During Obama’s tenure, Wall Street has roared back, even as the broader economy has struggled.
The largest banks are larger than they were when Obama took office and are nearing the level of profits they were making before the depths of the financial crisis in 2008, according to government data.
Wall Street firms — independent companies and the securities-trading arms of banks — are doing even better. They earned more in the first 21 / 2 years of the Obama administration than they did during the eight years of the George W. Bush administration, industry data show.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...y.html?hpid=z1

Hope and Change people, Hope and Change.

Originally Posted by ganbaru

I thought than the donation for the democrate from Wall Street was lower than last time, no ?

just ignore the man with briefcase full of cash standing behind the curtain.

[DonQuigleone]

On the other hand, there have always been self hating aristocrats.

[solomon]

Still as far as I am concerned, the democrats dont seem QUITE as bad as the republicans, even though at worst both are full of shit.

At least Democrats aren't repulsed by the idea of welfare and public dollars.

[Vexx]

There are wealthy who remember that eventually the peasants will guillotine you if you get too far out of hand... and then there are the wealthy that think it'll never happen on *their* watch.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by solomon

Still as far as I am concerned, the democrats dont seem QUITE as bad as the republicans, even though at worst both are full of shit.

At least Democrats aren't repulsed by the idea of welfare and public dollars.

well neither are republicans, at least as long as it comes in the form of tax cuts to corporations.

[Hollowgolem]

The biggest problem continues to be the duopoly. Both parties have convinced the population that they are the only options. They've rigged the system to keep out third party candidates.

But with the internet where it is now, this might be the chance to break the two primary parties' stranglehold and introduce real new ideas.

[justsomeguy]

The "system" that they've rigged is the Constitution itself. The "majority wins" voting system discourages third parties and vote splitting. To change the system would require much more than simply new ideas, it would require an Amendment to switch to voting system that takes into account what voters actually want. To pass the Amendment would require destroying both parties first, since they would block anything to reduce their power.

[Ithekro]

Discouraged, but not banned. There are several parties in US politics, and everyone once in a while a third party come out that makes waves, or even take over from an existing party (Remember the Whigs or the Democratic-Republicans?). But today it seems more that a political party will rather shift itself over to something else over a period of time rather than change its name. As I think Vexx complained about, the Republican Party is not the Republican Party he grew up with. Neither is the Democratic Part for that matter. Something changed fundimentally in both parties from the 1960s to the 1980s. Even their voting blocks almost completely shifted around. The South use to be Democrats territory and now it is Republicans territory. Something changed and the two parties are not the same parties anymore.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Discouraged, but not banned.

However, vote splitting will typically result in loss. Hence, it is a no-go.

Neither is the Democratic Part for that matter. Something changed fundimentally in both parties from the 1960s to the 1980s. Even their voting blocks almost completely shifted around. The South use to be Democrats territory and now it is Republicans territory. Something changed and the two parties are not the same parties anymore.

That change would be the civil rights movement.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Discouraged, but not banned. There are several parties in US politics, and everyone once in a while a third party come out that makes waves, or even take over from an existing party (Remember the Whigs or the Democratic-Republicans?). But today it seems more that a political party will rather shift itself over to something else over a period of time rather than change its name. As I think Vexx complained about, the Republican Party is not the Republican Party he grew up with. Neither is the Democratic Part for that matter. Something changed fundimentally in both parties from the 1960s to the 1980s. Even their voting blocks almost completely shifted around. The South use to be Democrats territory and now it is Republicans territory. Something changed and the two parties are not the same parties anymore.

There's a reason for that and Professor Carroll Quigley was spot on when he wrote about it in his book:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."-Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Chapter 20, page 1247/1248.

As I've said numerous times before, there was no military industrial complex prior to the 1950s.
After they came into being, both parties changed into corporate-socialist/corporatist shills.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

As I've said numerous times before, there was no military industrial complex prior to the 1950s.
After they came into being, both parties changed into corporate-socialist/corporatist shills.

Agreed that to a large extent you're choosing *which* corporations will get a better ride and screw you more as a taxpayer when you vote Dem or GOP.
Both the Progressive/Occupy surge on one side and some parts of the Tea Party from the other (minus astroturfs and hijacks) - they are bottom level responses to both parties dropping the pretense it was anything else.

For a while one could point clearly to the GOP as the lesser of two evils for common folk. But now if you look at the corporate ownership, the tentacles clearly have a grip on both sides of the aisle - making Kang and Kodos not so funny now.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Agreed that to a large extent you're choosing *which* corporations will get a better ride and screw you more as a taxpayer when you vote Dem or GOP.

The problem, I think, is that Microsoft, Apple, and Google all support the same party. How, then, is one supposed to choose?