If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Socialist)   The left have convinced themselves of fiction that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change. Of course, BSABSVR, so vote Obama anyways   (socialistworker.org) divider line 207
    More: Obvious, obama, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, SDS, Wall Street protests, fictions, Lyndon B. Johnson, historiographies  
•       •       •

1094 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 8:14 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-29 07:27:16 PM

mat catastrophe: I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.


I had the idea to outright ban political parties, but then I realized that it would fly in the face of "freedom of assembly."
 
2012-10-29 07:48:40 PM

mat catastrophe: Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.


Which is kind of the point. They were given a wish that could do anything and automatically pass.

They didn't wish for something that would allow third parties to be competitive.
 
2012-10-29 08:13:12 PM
...and so after being judged incapable of being reformed, in order to inculcate themselves and other group members from his heretical ideas that threatened the very foundation that provided so much of their tribalism based amour propre, the lone fark progressive that was truly just tired of supporting the entrenchment of this capitalistic and authoritative political system was attacked as unscrupulous charlatan and a wanton selfpromoter, and finally cast out of the flock as a heretic...
 
2012-10-29 08:41:36 PM
relcec
...and so after being judged incapable of being reformed, in order to inculcate themselves and other group members from his heretical ideas that threatened the very foundation that provided so much of their tribalism based amour propre, the lone fark progressive that was truly just tired of supporting the entrenchment of this capitalistic and authoritative political system was attacked as unscrupulous charlatan and a wanton selfpromoter, and finally cast out of the flock as a heretic...

It's okay, arguments that bullshiat still set cognitive dissonance to work. It might only be a few months until we see their "I used to be an Obama supporter but this is too much" posts.
 
2012-10-29 11:21:31 PM

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.

Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'


So you got nothing. Of course.
 
2012-10-29 11:49:35 PM

mat catastrophe: Satanic_Hamster: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

There were a number of Libertarian and Green party people on the ballot for me on the non-Big Election items. Of course, they were running for President/Senators as well.

But the odds are that the parties weren't pushing them. Hell, they're barely pushing their national tickets this year.

sprawl15:
The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.

Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.

Empty Matchbook:

...You I like.

There's something I don't hear very often...


Anyone who admits the truth that 3rd party candidates would be equally as powerless/corruptible as their mainstream counterparts wins points in my column.
 
2012-10-30 02:32:36 PM

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.

Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'

So you got nothing. Of course.


What you got: 'Give me your vote on Tuesday and I'll gladly pay you back on Neverday.' Nuh-uh, nope, not gonna do it.

As for my 'plan'.

1) Watch the Democrats and Republicans finish looting and destroying the middle class, since the left will be a minority faction until that happens and I detest coup-d'etat/anarchist terror shenanigans.

2) When the left is the majority, amend the Constitution from a Federal Republic to a Representative Democracy.

3) Crush the right-wing oligarchy's counter-revolution in the subsequent civil war.*

Could democracy replace the federal republic without the suffering and death? Theoretically, yes, but I doubt the 1% and their minions are going to give up before killing millions of the 99%.

*Someone up-thread commented that America under stress is more likely to go right-wing rather than left and I agree that is a possibility. If that happens, it will be somebody else's problem, since I'll be one of the first to go into the ovens.
 
Displayed 7 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report