Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
You guys can spout off about Republicans making a come back, but it isn't going to happen. They say in politics you have to know how to count. Republicans do very poorly with non-white voters. They have never done well with black(well not for over a century) and they have alienated latinos to the extent that they will never vote in large numbers for the GOP. Non-white voters will soon put out number white voters. Many whites already vote Democrat.
All of this adds up to the fact that the Republican party as it stands today is on it's way out, never to dominate American politics again. It's a numbers game and the GOP doesn't have the numbers. They are over.
Well she supports primarily right wing viewpoints, and knows how she will vote both in just over a year, and just over 2 years in the National elections. I could call her a right wing conservative supporter of the GOP, but republican is easier to type.
Nice try, but if that were the case you wouldn't have gone through all the trouble and typing to insist that she was a republican like you did in the post below.
If you walk like a duck and quack like a duck you are a duck whether you like it or not. Your views are in line with mainstream republican views.
Actually I stand by that as I said above. Maybe her individual views differ, but when you know that you are going to vote for a certain party in a election year or years away without knowing who the candidate will be, you are so affiliated with that party as to not make any difference as far as discussing politics goes.
1. Who are the "you guys" that are spouting that the republicans are going to make a come back?
2. Do you think a one party system is better than two? Should there only be one group in power and no chance at opposing that group's ideas?
1 Pretty sure he was referring to Lelie and jig
2 No I dont, I love the fact we have a atwo party system in keeps the gov't in check.
Do you think 2000-2006, and to certain extent 07-08 is a time in America that things went great so we should just let the party in charge keep their jobs, and their holds on the reins of power?
1. Who are the "you guys" that are spouting that the republicans are going to make a come back?
2. Do you think a one party system is better than two? Should there only be one group in power and no chance at opposing that group's ideas?
1 Pretty sure he was referring to Lelie and jig
2 No I dont, I love the fact we have a atwo party system in keeps the gov't in check.
Do you think 2000-2006, and to certain extent 07-08 is a time in America that things went great so we should just let the party in charge keep their jobs, and their holds on the reins of power?
Certainly not. I was just trying to clarify what mojo was saying. I didn't totally understand his post. I'm still going to wait for his response in the second question, but thanks for clearing up the first.
I'll support smaller parties in local elections, depending on the candidate, but I agree voting for a third party in a national election at this point in history is pretty much a waste of a trip to the voting booth.
quack it I have had enough, I am starting my own party. It is called the Big Party you are all invited to join.
Sorry to inform you....that by your own reasoning...you are "unelectable" in a two party system regardless of your BigParty platform being the best for your constituents.
And why is democracy being defined as two party only ?
The appearance of a balance of power is what both parties hope for. They get yous guys all teased up like you are at a sporting event, feed you talking points, and count money while you bicker.
No one yet has answered my question about why you all expect your parties to represent you if your vote is unconditional. This all leads to opportunist politicians like Joe Leiberman.
Democrat has become a word that means "not republican". That has been the result of rooting for your own team even if they suck. Obama has NEVER been "green". He appears as such when compared to the greed and profiteering of the alternative. True progressive are not very happy with Obama's progress thus far. So it's laughable to hear people like Jig and Lelie assert his "greenness" as such evil. But as per usual, the discussion can only be surface , as it always begins and ends with a lob being hurled like a grenade, and then no support.
Why ? Because their talking head heroes move on to the next bit of sensationalism, leaving them nothing to do but research for themselves. AND THAT JUST AIN'T NEVER GONNA HAPPEN.
And why is democracy being defined as two party only ?
No one yet has answered my question about why you all expect your parties to represent you if your vote is unconditional. This all leads to opportunist politicians like Joe Leiberman.
I think our democracy (not all democracy) at the national level is being defined as two party only because that's the reality we live with right now. Vote for Nader or Perot or Mickey Mouse for President if you want, but if you're going to do that then you might as well stay home that Tuesday.
I often vote Green or for even smaller parties locally, but I rarely have the choice to do that at the national level. Depending on where you live, it may be possible to get some other parties into Congress, but even that's unlikely at this point.
Sure, both parties represent corporate interests far more than they represent you or me, but it's not true that there's zero difference between Dems and Reps. I believe we'd be better off in the long run if the three most recent Supreme Court appointments were more like Sotomayer, and less like Roberts and Alito. With a different outcome in the last election, I doubt we'd even be having a national health care conversation right now (we'll see how that turns out, but at least we're finally talking about it again). These may be subtle differences, and not the systemic overhaul we need, but they are differences, and they are pretty much all we have to choose from right now.
The appearance of a balance of power is what both parties hope for. They get yous guys all teased up like you are at a sporting event, feed you talking points, and count money while you bicker.
That was very well said. It reminds me of how likened the bickering over the election of 2000 with the subway series of the same year. Nice job.
What I said was just the facts. Demographics don't lie. The Republicans are done. They absolutely can't continue as they are today.
Not to argue with you, but merely to put a different spin on statistics. Food for thought if you will. Congress, which is largely democrat, is approaching an all time low approval rating according to Gallup.
Since many voters view reps as their only alternative incumbent dems may be dismissed for reps next month. Stats can be spun many ways. Both predictions are logical and backed up by the numbers (all be them different numbers). All we can do is wait and see what happens. Voters are fickle.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Oct 8, 2009 11:59:22 GMT -5
I have to agree at least in sentiment with what fish is saying here. The Republicans aren't "done" any more than the Democrats were 6 years ago when the Reps were talking about their "permanent majority."
And why is democracy being defined as two party only ?
No one yet has answered my question about why you all expect your parties to represent you if your vote is unconditional. This all leads to opportunist politicians like Joe Leiberman.
I think our democracy (not all democracy) at the national level is being defined as two party only because that's the reality we live with right now. Vote for Nader or Perot or Mickey Mouse for President if you want, but if you're going to do that then you might as well stay home that Tuesday.
And that's the only argument that exists to NOT vote third party. But the problem, then, is twofold; a) By design, those who would effect the most change in a time when it is most needed(ie-those who are most deserving of our vote) will never make it on the national level even though their life's work may have been practicing what they preach rather than how it is now-promising what you refuse to practice. AND b) the numbers that mojo spoke will not necessarily manifest because of knee jerk voting that pretends that either party gives us a real choice. And why would they. In effect, half of the country spends alternating 4 or 8 year periods routing for the failure of the current administration.
These fuggers HAVE TO SEE that we are willing to take it from the frying pan to the fire in order to hold them accountable. It would only take an election or two for a third party threat to get the other two parties in line. Until then, our politics will cause us the demise similar to where political correctness has gotten us. People practice what to say formulaically rather than learning to banish fear and hatred from their hearts. Parties promise you what you want and succeed in failing because of a "balance of power". The prime result of that is the influence of lobbies and fat politicians accountable only to their benefectors.
Anyone who tells you your candidate is unelectable seeks to steal your voice in order to maintain the status quo. Crazy is doing the SAME thing over and over and expecting a different result. Change does not come from within the machine. The machine rounds off the corners of the square part.
"Let your life be a friction against the machine". Henry David Thoreau
It should be noted however that approval split on party lines does give the dems and advantage.
I can't find the data, but there has also been polling that asks voters how they feel about their own congressman. The responses were overwhelmingly positive.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Oct 8, 2009 16:57:03 GMT -5
Oh, I agree with you red. But as long as we're given only two choices, I'm still voting for the moderately conservative Presidential candidates like Clinton and Obama before I vote for the far right conservative candidates.
I have to agree at least in sentiment with what fish is saying here. The Republicans aren't "done" any more than the Democrats were 6 years ago when the Reps were talking about their "permanent majority."
I'm not sure what that distinction is about. I'm not championing the reps cause or future. I'm just saying that power will always shift.
Post by nitetimeritetime on Oct 8, 2009 17:22:26 GMT -5
Oh, I see. What I meant by that was I don't think your evidence (Congressional poll numbers) proves your point, but I still agree with the overall point.
Oh, I agree with you red. But as long as we're given only two choices, I'm still voting for the moderately conservative Presidential candidates like Clinton and Obama before I vote for the far right conservative candidates.
Had the colonialists merely accepted what they were given, we'd all be in a quite different boat over our history.
It is our civic and moral duty to our country and ourselves to always do the best we can. Taking what we're given is for people afraid of what they may lose, not passionate about what they stand to gain.
Last election, I had the hardest time deciding and it came down to the very last second for me. But not between Beavis OR Butthead. Cynthia McKinney AND Ralph Nader have histories of trading away a life of comfort in order to speak truth to power. To choose "the lesser of two evils" is to not honor the better choices that we are "given".
It is a logical fallacy to keep saying that someone we are unwilling to vote for is unelectable.
It's like saying the English Channel is unswimmable so I'm never going to learn to swim.
Ghandi said to be the change we wish to see in the world.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Whew...starting to feel like that Salamander fella--loco in la capesa !
You disagree with my reasoning, but agree with my conclusion.
Exactly.
I'm not sure why it makes less sense to you now, though. You made a cause/effect argument. But correlation doesn't equal causation.
That is, we both agree that Republicans are likely to be the majority party in Congress again at some point. But just because a majority Democratic Congress has low approval ratings right now, that doesn't necessarily mean Republicans will do better in the next election. And even if Reps do better in the next election, historical trends suggest that the current approval ratings will not necessarily have been the cause.
Not to argue with you, but merely to put a different spin on statistics. Food for thought if you will. Congress, which is largely democrat, is approaching an all time low approval rating according to Gallup.
Since many voters view reps as their only alternative incumbent dems may be dismissed for reps next month. Stats can be spun many ways. Both predictions are logical and backed up by the numbers (all be them different numbers). All we can do is wait and see what happens. Voters are fickle.
Just to drive the point home: the worst part is that when the pendulum again swings to the right (not saying it's inevitable, but at least fairly likely), the Republicans will claim, as each party does when there is a popularity shift in their favor, that this is because the public is tired of the Dems and ready for the Reps to do the job right. In reality the former is only somewhat true and the latter is just specious. The public may desire something different than Democratic rule, but they only choose Republicans because they are the only other option on the menu, at least as the general public sees it. In short, if the public disapproves of the job the Democrats are doing, doesn't mean Republicans are the answer. Politicians and the voting public alike need to learn that.
Had the colonialists merely accepted what they were given, we'd all be in a quite different boat over our history.
True, we'd probably have universal health care right now.
It is our civic and moral duty to our country and ourselves to always do the best we can. Taking what we're given is for people afraid of what they may lose, not passionate about what they stand to gain.
To choose "the lesser of two evils" is to not honor the better choices that we are "given".
It is a logical fallacy to keep saying that someone we are unwilling to vote for is unelectable.
Seriously, though, what I am supposed to do besides vote for one of the two candidates that appear on my voting ballot? I could have abstained (or written in Nader, which would have had the same effect), but how is that a solution?
It's not a logical fallacy to say that a third party had no chance of winning this past election. It's just true. Even the Green party recognizes that they are unelectable in Presidential politics right now, which is why they literally wrote their "start local" strategy into the party's platform.
Ghandi said to be the change we wish to see in the world.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Again, great ideal, but how do we actually do it in national politics? What effect did your vote have on the last election? My vote helped elect a President who has at least started the kinds of political discussions that I think this country needs. Had the other guy won, we would still be debating whether torture was ok instead of debating the best way to reform health care.
Had the colonialists merely accepted what they were given, we'd all be in a quite different boat over our history.
True, we'd probably have universal health care right now.
That is one of the most ridiculous rebuttals that I have ever seen. That is just meaningless, unfounded and an all out arbitrary statement.
Since you are so much in favor of universal health care which of the foreign country's systems do you feel is better than the current one in the U.S.?
And just so we're clear, and you don't go and start with the knee jerk reaction of telling me that our current system is not perfect - I know that. I do think that it needs fixing. I just don't trust the government to run it all by themselves. They tend to be bad with money and put it towards things for which it was not originally intended when taken away from us. Social Security is a good example, as are medicare and medicaid. You know - the existing public options.
Anyway the point is that I want to know which country's system you think takes care of their people better than ours and why.