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.

(Znet)   Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat   (zmag.org) divider line 608
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16140 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 6:23 AM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



608 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-01-25 08:02:47 PM
Uhm, duh. Even the "left" in the states is still right as hell.

Kucinich for president, 2042
 
2004-01-25 08:10:20 PM
Waaah! The people who have been elected President don't agree with me! Waaah!

If you're looking at things from the far-left (as Vidal is) or the far-right, then everyone is going to look the same.
 
2004-01-25 08:14:26 PM
One Dance eh? That sounds touchy-feely-whiny enough to take place here in Santa Cruz!

Oh wait, it happened like 3 blocks away from me.

Santa Cruz Fark party at the Red Room anyone? It has the hottest bartenders in town too.
 
2004-01-25 09:40:19 PM
If your dollars run the government, you're an equal opportunity employer: you'll give money to both the republican whores and the democrat whores. You have to cover your bets.
 
2004-01-25 09:54:50 PM
And you wonder why voter apathy is as great as it is. I'd like a real choice on my ballot. Unfortunately, I'll have to settle for whoever the dems nominate.
 
2004-01-25 10:09:40 PM
Funny, I thought our only political party had two left wings, one Democrat, the other Democrat wannabes. What happened to smaller, less intrusive government and the belief in self-reliance?
 
2004-01-25 10:14:01 PM
Democratic nominee, Jack Johnson: I say your 3% titanium tax goes too far.

Republican nominee, John Jackson: And I say your 3% titanium tax doesn't go too far enough.
 
2004-01-25 10:26:27 PM
We are supposed to be a democracy. We are not. Not even close. You are only given two options, which are really just one option disguising itself as two, to make you think you actually even have a choice. A candidate comes along with ideas, and concern for middle class and the poor, and disdain for big business (Nader for example), and what happens? The corporate controlled media manipulates you to feel as if you are an idiot for voting for him. They want you to think that voting with your conscience is wrong. They tell you that you are throwing away your vote. The truth is, if you vote for the lesser of two evils, and don't vote third party, that is throwing away your vote.
Lets not forget, at one time, both the democrats, and the republicans were what would now be called "third parties" when parties like the whigs or the tories lost their usefulness, they were voted out of office. Those days are done. A forward thinking party like the green party is doomed because corporate power has taken our democracy away. The televised debates are run and controlled by coporations. Third parties have no power.
It is time for us to get rid of the useless Republicrat party. The Dems and Reps make politics boring because they don't want people to show up at the voting booth. The less people they have to fool, the better. If we mandatory voter turnout in the States, you could guarantee the pissed off disillusioned disenchanted disenfranchised masses would be voting third party, and things would be a lot different around here.
We are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world? Only two choices for President? That is only one more choice than Iraq had under Saddam Hussein...and they had 100 percent voter turnout....
 
2004-01-25 11:30:15 PM
SuburbanCowboy
I surely wasn't going to vote for Nader (or anyone in the Green party). Perhaps because my entire family would be out of jobs... but that's just my personal view.
I'd vote for McCain if he ran... but he won't. :(

Generally, I agree with you. Demoblicans piss me off.
 
2004-01-25 11:57:19 PM
SuburbanCowboy - I agree 100%. Right now, I'm hoping to vote for Kucinich. Looking at him and his policies, it seems like he has 3rd party ideals, but is running as a Democrat knowing it's his only chance at a win, slim as it may be. At least, that's my take on him.
 
2004-01-26 12:07:38 AM
 
2004-01-26 12:10:06 AM
Oh, and Admins: lovely idea to start monday morning off with a nice warm fire :)
 
2004-01-26 12:24:01 AM
I don't understand the appeal of Kucinich. Could someone explain it to me?
 
2004-01-26 12:52:53 AM
Ha-ha..., it is funny because it is true. I know a church going, concealed carry weapon license holding, death penalty supporting, welfare opposing, deer hunter who thinks he is a liberal because he voted for Gore and lives next door to a gay couple.
 
2004-01-26 12:54:16 AM
I'll just keep on voting for myself like I always do.
 
2004-01-26 01:10:23 AM
A write-in for John Anderson is always an alternative.
 
2004-01-26 01:12:11 AM
And I'll keep voting for iollow, just like usual.
 
2004-01-26 01:29:54 AM
Good article. Bush's opposition are only slightly more palatable than he is. Big businesses influence in government is as bad as religions is. The constitution tried to fix the mix of government and religion but not as much for business interests and government. Though, you could argue that those are one and the same a lot of the time.
 
2004-01-26 04:42:09 AM
Left, right, it is all the same to me. The two parties may not be all right or all left, but one thing is for sure, they are all the same. I vote for a third party when I agree with a third party candidate (which is often Libertarian). Often during the non-presidential years there are absolutely no candidates on the ballot that I would vote for so I go and cast a blank ballot. If you vote for one of the two major parties despite disagreeing with them merely because you think thot the other side would be worse, then you my friend is what is wrong with this country today. The Dem candidate will get lots of Not-Bush votes, but they won't take that as what you meant it. They will take it as an endorsement from the people and continue strengthening the very things that you thought the other guy would do. Voting for either of the twe parties is one of the most unamerican things that you can do. I'm not trying to get you to vote for the same party as me. You can vote for Green or Reform or even the damned communist party for all I care, but what you need to de is to vote for a candidate you agree with and stop endorsing the horrible things that the twe major partios stand for. And if no candidate works for let them know. Find ones that are close and write them mhy you disagree. Don't let them take your silence as encouragement. And if all else fails you can even run for office in you home town, state, or even the whole country.
 
2004-01-26 06:31:05 AM
Yay! One step closer to the realization that in a capitalist republic the battle isn't left versus right its haves versus have nots.
 
2004-01-26 06:32:27 AM
Is this a real website? Or a Republican plant?
I think this guy screams a little too irrationally about the party.

He is right about Clark though.
Clark represents the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.
 
2004-01-26 06:33:04 AM
This isn't even a flamewar.

We are supposed to be the greatest democracy in the world? Only two choices for President? That is only one more choice than Iraq had under Saddam Hussein.

Good point.

Things that would make your country better:
- Impose restrictions on campaign contributions
- Introduce a voting system that makes it easier for third parties to gain a leg up
- Compusory voting

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.
 
2004-01-26 06:34:17 AM
I consider my self a liberal but this is a slew of crap. from his point of view only him,the writer, omnipotent god, would be a wise President instead of getting in to politics he rants on the internet, waaaah! Yeah I could write this kind of crap too. You have to remember that to get anything done currently in this country you almost have to be a dictator or act like Bush is acting. Compromises, compromises...We need a benevolent dictator.
 
2004-01-26 06:34:33 AM
You can bet your ass that this will devolve into a left/right flamewar once the party faithful arrive.

My bet is on a republican starting the flames.
 
2004-01-26 06:35:09 AM
I'm a capitalist who votes Libertarian. I can respect a socialist who votes Green. But I have no respect for people of ANY ideology who perpetuate the sick fraud of modern party politics by "wanting their vote to count" and going for "the lesser of two evils."

Look at it this way. There are two scenarios:

A) You live in a state like mine (Texas), where the vote is going to go one way no matter WHAT (Bush), and so you might as well vote your principles.

or

B) You live in a state where the vote will be close enough for your vote to matter (as in, on the scale of hundreds of votes, like Florida in 2000. Now, in a vote that close, both parties will contest in court. So it will come down not to your vote, but to the political affiliations of appointed judges. So once again, you might as well vote your principles.
 
2004-01-26 06:37:15 AM
I think the government should effectively be transparent. It should work to raise the overall quality of life and keep people from being trampled on and I shouldn't have to worry about it unless I am affecting someone else in a negative way.
 
2004-01-26 06:38:26 AM
I generally think Gore Vidal has some damned enlightening insights into stuff...

here is an article about one of his books

only 5$ used! ;) worth a read...
 
2004-01-26 06:39:29 AM
Once they slipped the Electoral College on you, you were yoked.

Now move, ox!
 
2004-01-26 06:41:16 AM
spamdog: - Compusory voting

Then again, maybe I'm wrong.




you're wrong.

Forcing people to vote who don't care enough to vote on their own isn't going to solve the problem.
 
2004-01-26 06:41:36 AM
Things that would make your country better:
- Impose restrictions on campaign contributions
- Introduce a voting system that makes it easier for third parties to gain a leg up
- Compusory voting


Nope, nope, nope.

Restrictions on campaign contributions favor the incumbent. It also silences the speech of those who want to support a candidate more than such restrictions would allow.

There definitely needs to be voting reform, I favor Condorcet's Method myself, but if it is done to help give third parties a leg up it goes against the idea of voting.

And I know several pelitical people who don't vote for political reasons, as is much their right as it is to vote. I don't know what country you are from, but that sort of thing goes against many of the ideas of freedom that Americans, for the most part, hold dear.
 
2004-01-26 06:43:15 AM
It is not that black and white anatole.. I voted for Gore in the last election, becuase I liked most of his policies and approaches. There is no canidate generally whom I agree with 100% on all the issues, and your "lack of respect" for anyone who doesn't see it so simply is just dumb, methinks... I mean, do you agree with EVERYTHING your canidate does? No? The is it still the lesser of evils, no?
 
2004-01-26 06:45:47 AM
I guess when I say "restrictions on campaign contributions", I'm talking about doing something about the practice of buying off congressmen. That shiat needs to stop, I reckon.

Compulsory voting is a good idea. It dilutes the extremist votes.
 
2004-01-26 06:46:03 AM
If you voted for Gore because you agreed with his platform, fine. The numbnuts I don't have any respect for are those who agreed ideologically with another candidate's platform but voted for him out of cowardice.
 
2004-01-26 06:47:44 AM
Yeah, so libertarians never get any limelight, but hey at least we spend more than 5 seconds thinking about issues before we throw ourselves into the public eye.

I'm sure someone's asked this before, but I'm just curious: What good is a democratic party in a republic whose republican president claims to be spreading democracy to despotic, totalitarian nations? Kind of a clusterfark, no?

/Next, see: Hitler on ICE!
 
2004-01-26 06:48:03 AM
Jeebus, what a crap site! Love the section on Russia, basically one article in support of something called "International Solidarity with Workers in Russia". Whatever.

A for any of you righties who thought the loony left gave Clinton a free pass on Kosovo, do please take a gander on the section on Kosovo. You'll see the spirit of Chomsky called forth there. This from the same kooks who claimed NATO actions were taken because we wanted to remove the last socialist (sic) goverment in Europe...
 
2004-01-26 06:48:16 AM
Compulsory voting is NOT a good idea.

This country's future should not be decided by those without enough sense of civic duty to get up off their fat arses and stand in a line once every four years. It's bad enough that all you have to do to vote is be a warm body over the age of 18. Making voting compulsory would be an absolute disaster.
 
2004-01-26 06:50:06 AM
Compulsory vating is a horrible idea. It violates the basic tenants of freedom of speech. And my solution to the "Buying off candidates" thing is rather simple. Don't give thim anything to buy. The only reason people try to buy candidates is because of their pover. If we reduce their power and the siza of government dramatically that would no longer be a problem.
 
2004-01-26 06:51:23 AM
Actually, SuburbanCowboy, we were never supposed to be a Democracy. In fact, that word isn't in the Constitution.

The US is a representative republic, hence the congress and the Electoral College.

However, the two-party system is a joke. Unfortunately, anyone who is interested in actually lessening government's interference in their everyday life, and getting the government out of your wallet are forced to vote Libertarian. And while the Libertarian platform is solid, the two major parties (with help from the LP themselves) have succeeded in perpetuating negative stereotypes and marginalizing the party.
 
2004-01-26 06:52:48 AM
All of you who say compulsory voting would be a disaster show me your farking political science masters/doctorates or shut up. Its been tried before and it wasn't a disaster, it was just different. As for people who dont want to vote they can cast blank ballots.
 
2004-01-26 06:54:46 AM
I didn't say it would be a disaster. I said it would be against the ideals of the concept of freedom of speech. Just because something won't blow out to a full disaster does not mean that it is right.
 
2004-01-26 06:55:16 AM
Just remember, in this election we're voting not just for president, but the next set of Supreme Court Justices. From what I've heard, Rehnquist is just about done, and Scalia might bow out, too if Dubya gets himself a second term.

The decisions made by the supremes WILL touch on your everyday life, is a way that is rare for presidential decisions (Unless you're in the military--keep it up! You'll be getting girl scout cookies in the mail soon, it's that time again :P ). As a Farkette, I'm glad that Roe V. Wade is still in effect, although I never hope to use it. Melanin enhanced farkers should give a tip of the cap to the courts-- they helped take signs off of the water fountains. Boy Farkers, the courts are what let you buy "Hustler" at the local 7-11.

I'd dearly love to vote Libertarian, but BushCo gives me the screaming heebieJeebies when it comes to the court. Do you realize JOHN ASHCROFT could get nominated? I think that calls for a "Dean Scream".

/Clark might be OK.
 
2004-01-26 06:55:23 AM
"This country's future should not be decided by those without enough sense of civic duty to get up off their fat arses and stand in a line once every four years"

Are you saying that those who vote already completely understand the issues? Somehow I doubt that.

What is that quote? "It is the responsibility of a democracy to keep its citizens informed." If you feel that people are too stupid to vote, why aren't you advocating better education for these people? Can you not see any dangers in letting people avoid their most important civic duty? Conversely, can you not see any benefits in higher participation?

I don't see why you should be allowed to -not- vote. It is your responsibility to participate in your democracy.

Anyway, I'm just trying to make you all think.
 
2004-01-26 06:55:50 AM
Anatole: In my humblest opinion, the idea of another four years under Bush is compulsion enough to get off my ass and vote, even if I don't necessarily agree with the widely-accepted democratic majority candidate.

I'll agree with the general consensus, however, that in the situation given, Al Gore would've failed miserably where Bush has at least held things together, but we're past that now, and it's time for a president who's not into global hegemony and sociopolitical oppression.
 
2004-01-26 06:56:47 AM
Compulsory vating is a horrible idea. It violates the basic tenants of freedom of speech.

"As for people who dont want to vote they can cast blank ballots."

Seriously. It's a good idea.
 
2004-01-26 06:58:07 AM
I'd dearly love to vote Libertarian, but BushCo gives me the screaming heebieJeebies when it comes to the court.

What?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2004-01-26 06:59:08 AM
This guy thinks WWII was a war against racism.

He thinks all our presidents are evil and there's nothing between them. I'll vote for evil Bush over any of the evil Bush clones campaigning in New Hampshire today. My vote doesn't affect anything but the name of the President, so he has no cause to object.
 
2004-01-26 07:00:05 AM
I don't see why you should be allowed to -not- vote. It is your responsibility to participate in your democracy.

We don't have responsiblity to the government. The government should work for us, not us work for the government. This country was once, and will again, be based around the concept of freedom. Choice is one of the greatest boons of freedom. If you eliminate the choice to participate or not participate in politics then that is an act that goes against freedom and should not be tolerated.
 
2004-01-26 07:02:08 AM
There's a difference between people who choose not to vote and people who simply don't care.

You can promote two people to do a job. One may not be the best worker, but he cares about his job. The other doesn't care about his job at all, and you have no idea how his work record is because he never shows up. Who's gonna do a better job? Which kind of voting population do you honestly think would do a better job running the country?
 
2004-01-26 07:03:24 AM
spamdog:

Compulsory voting is nuts. You're assuming only extremists from one side are voting. If opinion is split down the middle, then it won't matter. Otherwise you're forcing tons of people (who don't care enough to learn about the people they're voting for) to vote. If voting were compulsory the Demoblicans and Republicrats would have a deadlock on the political landscape. Not to mention that 'freedom' is not only the right to vote, but the right to not vote.

And I think you're right about having restrictions on campaign contributions.

TheOmni:

It may not help third parties, but I wouldn't say it favors incumbents. It doesn't silence of people who want to help, it attempts to silence money as a political force. If people truly want to support someone, let them make calls and walk door-to-door. Even hand out flyers. There's no limit to how many pamphlet a private citizen can print up and pass out. "Supporting" a candidate shouldn't mean getting them more face time on TV than the other candidates. Little/no coverage is a failure of modern day news (and some say a Big Business conspiracy.)

Though I'm totally with you in that we shouldn't give 3rd parties a better advantage, they are obviously at a disadvantage now.

If anyone cares, here's a Wiki on Condorcet's Method that TheOmni mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcets_Method
 
2004-01-26 07:03:29 AM
Anatole ---
I'm a left leaning libertarian type, so I'm caught in the "Nader Dilemma", but with libertarian instead of green. If Bush gets a second term, he's sure to nominate some crypto-fundie nutbags to the Supreme Court. If I vote my conscience with the libertarians, I could be royally screwing myself when it comes to the Court. A vote for a president is a proxy vote for the justices they appoint.
 
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report