Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
How is your own side full of crap?
Author Message
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 574
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #31
RE: How is your own side full of crap?
(12-21-2017 07:08 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  I was once told in an online discussion in an article, that political beliefs should be based on ones income. The lower the income, Democrat. Higher the income Republican. I believe that is a load of crap. Income shouldn't dictate ones political beliefs. For me it depends upon the issue. I lean more to the right. Overall I'm very disappointed by how Republicans have been handling things when they control the government. They have been more talk and no action. I will not vote democrat, I've seen them in action. I was registered as an independent, but in NM you must be a Democrat or Republican to vote in primaries. In 2016 I re registered as a Republican to vote in the primaries.

No party cares about the American people IMO. Its like the American People are customers in a walmart. The Democrat employees are outside trying to get people into the store, not using the front proper entrance. The Republican employees are on a brake. Neither is helping the customers. Occasionally one from either side actually appears in the store, but quickly leave when they get overwhelmed by too many customers.

Both sides are full of crap.

That trope is political propaganda

Go look up average income by state. Match that to the electoral college last election. My recollection is the 8-11 states with the highest per capita income voted for Hillary.

If you subscribe to the idea that all people vote self-interest rather than some ideological reasons (I think we vote tribally but that's for another time), people living in densely populated areas who have wealth tend to vote Democrat. So the question becomes what is the self-interest they are voting? Maybe they are voting to not have people living on sidewalks pissing on their building or vote out of fear that the poor will rise up and toss them out of their home.
12-22-2017 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AdoptedMonarch Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,199
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 153
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk, Va.
Post: #32
RE: How is your own side full of crap?
I am among the most despised of political labels: the neocon. We are liberal at our core, but simply cannot get comfortable with the economic incoherence, cultural disdain and absence of basic patriotism that has so infected the Democrat Party and the modern progressive ideology.

The result is a constant internal debate over irreconcilable principles (or perhaps it's just a lack of principles), which causes us to feel a need to engage on virtually every issue but never commit squarely on a sensible solution. Think Jonah Goldberg, John Podoretz and perhaps even Peggy Noonan.

If the Democrats ever regained their sanity, we'd probably come back into the fold. But, until then, our donations and votes usually go to the Republican or Libertarian candidate, whichever is least offensive.

Great thread, b.t.w.
12-22-2017 04:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 14,468
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 733
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #33
RE: How is your own side full of crap?
(12-21-2017 04:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  See, I hate to admit it, but I think a big problem with the current process is the primary system. When the political bosses picked the candidates in the smoke-filled back rooms, their primary concern was electability, so they tended to pick toward the center. In the primaries the bases turn out, and on both sides they tend toward the extreme. So we get Roy Moore as a candidate for senate in Alabama, when the bosses would have picked either of two other candidates over him, either one of which would have won in a landslide. And that's just a very recent and obvious example.

I don't have a ready solution. I'm somewhat intrigued by what some of the western states are doing, where all the candidates from both parties run in one primary, and the top two vote getters run in the general. If both of them are from the same party, then that party was pretty obviously going to win in the first place, and in the general the voters for the other party would presumably support the more moderate of the two. But I'm not that familiar with the details, and I would expect to find unanticipated problems if I dug deeper.

I also like the concept of proportional representation. It is obviously a way to make it easier for third party candidates to win, which I like. It also provides a way for supporters of a minority party (e.g., republicans in California) to have representatives who support their values. And both of those in ways that first-past-the-post systems cannot provide.

My problem with your approach is that you are relying on fallible and probably biased human beings to decide who gets on and who doesn't, and what content is permissible and what isn't. And I simply don't trust that.

This is what flabbergasts me. What I'm proposing is what we first had. A viable candidate gets his or her name on the ballot by registered voter petition. How in the hell can anyone say that is biased? The electorate decides who is on the ballot, not some party boss. Once they are on the ballot they utilize free access to media to present their ideas and agenda. Time or space which is free should not be wasted on negative campaigning which is almost exclusively ad hominem in nature, released late in the campaign, and designed to provide little to no time for rebuttal or forced retractions. This should be the only restriction and it should come from the government and pertain only to the free access. They can use their local speeches and public outings to throw rocks if they want to, but the media presentations are limited to ideas and how they might be accomplished. Where is the fallibility in that? The point is with free access and the prohibition of corporate money the candidates gain their support from the people who choose to support them. It is the most basic step in cleaning up the present partisan party politics and the kingmakers that reside within those parties who vet the candidates and put forth only those they can control. And more importantly it helps to stop the corporate interests from backing and funding candidates under both parties so they can be assured of the same perks moving forward regardless of which side wins.

Requiring the media to be of service to the public they rely upon for the numbers they need to make money is also essential. If the time is free their parent organizations can't utilize them to regain the money they donate by charging back for time and space. When they can't recoup the money they donated by charging the candidates for time and space then the public becomes more relevant to the process again.

I find the primary process you cite to be intriguing and at first glance I don't find anything wrong with that approach and see a benefit in not having crossover voters trying to tip a party primary to a more easily defeatable candidate.

There are many things in the process that can be tweaked but getting one's name on the ballot should fundamentally be by registered voter support. I've signed many such petitions for candidates I probably was not going to support, but I see it as essential to a free society that if someone has something to say, and is willing to front the time and money to seek office, to give them a chance to speak about whatever it is was that compelled them to that action.

IMO the biggest issue we have today is an uninformed electorate because candidates seldom state clearly what they are for and how they are going to achieve it and spend most of their time and energy in denigrating the opposition. If we continue down this road we'll have no discussion of ideas, no shaping of policy to form the best possible coalitions, and even worse not many good candidates. Who wants to put their families and themselves through such a negative process? As a result we'll have more of Dupe A vs Dupe B where both are backed by the same corporate money and only multinationals win and by definition that is a conflict of interest as to what is best for the United States.

It doesn't mean that corporations won't back their guys in each party, but it does mean that by controlling the two parties through financing that they can't control all of the voters on the ballot, and deny access to public events, like debates, to those of which they don't approve. It's been decades since all eligible candidates have had access to broadcast debates.
(This post was last modified: 12-22-2017 05:21 PM by JRsec.)
12-22-2017 05:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 52,678
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 914
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #34
RE: How is your own side full of crap?
(12-22-2017 05:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  This is what flabbergasts me. What I'm proposing is what we first had. A viable candidate gets his or her name on the ballot by registered voter petition. How in the hell can anyone say that is biased?

Because you have human beings deciding how many signatures a petition requires, and what constitutes a valid signature. If they want to keep a candidate out, they can set an unreasonably high threshold number of signatures, or go through petitions knocking out signatures willy nilly until the threshold number is no longer met. And don't say those things can't happen, because they can--and do--now.

Quote:
The electorate decides who is on the ballot, not some party boss. Once they are on the ballot they utilize free access to media to present their ideas and agenda. Time or space which is free should not be wasted on negative campaigning which is almost exclusively ad hominem in nature, released late in the campaign, and designed to provide little to no time for rebuttal or forced retractions. This should be the only restriction and it should come from the government and pertain only to the free access. They can use their local speeches and public outings to throw rocks if they want to, but the media presentations are limited to ideas and how they might be accomplished. Where is the fallibility in that? The point is with free access and the prohibition of corporate money the candidates gain their support from the people who choose to support them. It is the most basic step in cleaning up the present partisan party politics and the kingmakers that reside within those parties who vet the candidates and put forth only those they can control. And more importantly it helps to stop the corporate interests from backing and funding candidates under both parties so they can be assured of the same perks moving forward regardless of which side wins.

Unfortunately, I think we got better candidates when the party bosses picked them. Their job security depended on winning elections, so they picked electable candidates (generally more centrist to pick up crossover votes). In primaries, the more radical elements of the party bases dominate, and electability is not as important. So you end top with wacko extremist candidates.

Quote:Requiring the media to be of service to the public they rely upon for the numbers they need to make money is also essential. If the time is free their parent organizations can't utilize them to regain the money they donate by charging back for time and space. When they can't recoup the money they donated by charging the candidates for time and space then the public becomes more relevant to the process again.

Again, I don't trust the media either. You want them to patrol what is issue discussion that gets on, versus ad hominem attacks which don't. I can just see our biased media deciding that candidate A's platform issues are a personal attack on candidate B, but candidate B's ad hominems against candidate A are legitimate issues.

Quote:I find the primary process you cite to be intriguing and at first glance I don't find anything wrong with that approach and see a benefit in not having crossover voters trying to tip a party primary to a more easily defeatable candidate.
There are many things in the process that can be tweaked but getting one's name on the ballot should fundamentally be by registered voter support. I've signed many such petitions for candidates I probably was not going to support, but I see it as essential to a free society that if someone has something to say, and is willing to front the time and money to seek office, to give them a chance to speak about whatever it is was that compelled them to that action.
IMO the biggest issue we have today is an uninformed electorate because candidates seldom state clearly what they are for and how they are going to achieve it and spend most of their time and energy in denigrating the opposition. If we continue down this road we'll have no discussion of ideas, no shaping of policy to form the best possible coalitions, and even worse not many good candidates. Who wants to put their families and themselves through such a negative process? As a result we'll have more of Dupe A vs Dupe B where both are backed by the same corporate money and only multinationals win and by definition that is a conflict of interest as to what is best for the United States.
It doesn't mean that corporations won't back their guys in each party, but it does mean that by controlling the two parties through financing that they can't control all of the voters on the ballot, and deny access to public events, like debates, to those of which they don't approve. It's been decades since all eligible candidates have had access to broadcast debates.

I was a huge proponent of primaries when they started coming in big time, but I have to admit I was wrong. It's bad enough that we have an uninformed electorate voting, but when that uninformed electorate is also choosing who gets to run, that is not a sure-fire recipe for success.

I definitely support the concept that all candidates have access to debates and public air time. But I worry that the process you propose could get very bent out of shape very easily. If you can come up with reasonable solutions to address my concerns, I'd be interested.
12-22-2017 11:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 20,474
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 574
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #35
How is your own side full of crap?
How can you say we have an uninformed electorate? In Arkansas we elected a state auditor who campaigned on overturning Roe and defending the second amendment. He’s already had to repay the state for improper use of office funds. But he’s kept one promise 2A is alive and well. He’s failed to audit Roe into being overturned so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
12-23-2017 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.